This is why CXXXXC is VASTLY superior to CXXC

[Northen Wolf]

I'm low skilled in these things, so I won't go into tiny details. If anyone is English-Should-Be-Written-correctly-And-I-Have-English-Degree-And-Everyone-BEsides
me- are-dumb - then DO NOT, for RNG god sake, DO NOT read this post - saves time, new keyboard cost, nerves(if you have any), forum space.

Also, my English is not best I'll try to write as I can.

*Pulls on his anti-flaming suit*

1. This thread is going from discussion to flaming competition.

2. Sure it(flaming) makes even me laugh, but it is funny only if used for right time and right PERIOD.

3. Respect your opponent views, like you respect yours, if he says things are more correct in CxxC style, explain why is yours better, not why is his/hers/its(you can never know these days) are bad. visa versa(spelling?) same thing but CxxxxC instead of cxxc.

4. Comments should be proofed up with atleast something (example of 'dumb, not funny, flaming post' "pfft, this does better than that pfffft")
(sorry, if this kind of posting is allowed in these forums and I am just being whiny member)
---------------------------------
I have minimal skill in c3 compared to many of you, but this is My view:


******Prehistoric time
CxxxxC needs either river or aquad. to be useful.

CxxC
More defense - Units can cover large area, stack of 6 knights can protect CxxCxxKNIGHTSxxCxxC area, also defense in early ages/medieval ages can move where they are needed, in one 1 (1 movement point defense unit) turn.

CxxxxC
Knights(2 movement point units) can still cover some area, but you have less towns, so less knights needed for mobile defense. But if knight moves into city, it can attack outside of it. Then again, CxxxxC needs less units for defense, as it has about same (bit lower) unit support, but fewer towns to protect(As AI loves empty towns).

CxxC - More cities on harder level is useful for higher military support and you'll be boxed in quite fast.

CxxxxC - Has hard time for starts (you don't get to use free road under city tile, as soon as in CxxC and CxxC can conquer resources faster (due CX*4C needs cultural pop for fat cross style. Otherwise it would ruin CxxxxC placement)). Also not using one free road tile, lengthens time of settler-travel by at least 1 turn

And Cx4C has about same high unit support as CxxC. CxxC simply fits more 1 military limit allowing cities, while your CxxxxC city will allow only 3 (in repo.) unit support, counting out Theater.

********Mid-Early Game
CxxxxC Has easier time (if not war) It city support limit(before extra corruption applies) might be low enough, for extra production/extra gold.

In CxxC cities overall production is higher, but alot of cities produce 2-3 shields, due corruption, and not much science, while CxxxxC cities produce lots of more shields or at least equal, with CxxC.

********Early Medieval age
CxxxxC has to go builder style due it needs libs, courthouse and marketplaces.

CxxC can produce units(slow with few shields per turn in town, but more units than Cx4 that produces improvements.) but has to focus on core too.

CxxxxC can move tiles and Micromanage cities into higher production, while CxxC has problems with it.

*******Late med. age
CxxxxC has its focus on improvements (uni), while CxxC is getting mass unit production up. CxxC just produces more units and less science that period. But CxxC can use more specialist farms.

***********Industrial age
Boosts CxxxxC production, but also CxxC production. Problem is CxxC loses its production outside its core(corruption), while CxxxxC has lower corruption(courthouses and nearness to capital) and as high production, at the cost of less gpt per turn.

*******Tank age(you call it "modern" age)
CxxC and CxxxxC are highly railroaded and produce about same (after corruption). Production is same due CxxxxC can choose tiles it works on. But CxxC is finally getting up high size towns, due RR boosting food).

******
*****
So total:
CxxC wins in overall production, but production levels are about same, due cx4c has less corruption (city amount, and farness from capital)

CxxC can use more space than CxxxxC in early ages, maximizing income/use of tile.
In med. age and later Cx4C Has more production/income due it can choose where citizens work.

Cx4C needs more improvements and no-war-period, to keep up with CxxC

CxxC makes up lost shields/commerce with science/gold farms, getting (depends of map) ahead of CxxxxC.

CxxxxC can't even risk a city loss, too much will go.
CxxxxC has less defense units, so it can have same size military(offense) as CxxC
CxxxxC produces faster
CxxC Produces more, but more slowly.
CxxC has no happiness /improvements issues while CxxxxC has more.

In the end, everything depends of map, but cxxc is better in low producing tiles or games (like desert tiles or island start).

In the end CxxC wins due it is less influanced by outside factors(loss of town, more production, can use bad tile as city center and main thing is that loss of city is not THAT bad) .

Jedi asks: Correct, or not, is this analyze???

*pulls on extra anti-flaming suit*

 

[axehaxe]

pyrrhos

CxxxxC DOES generate more production
CxxxxC DOES attain higher population
CxxxxC DOES have greater placement options

but have you forgotten that you can DOUBLE the # of cities within the same land tract???? Economically speaking, if you use CxxC you get twice the number of cities but half the tiles per city so economically, it is similar. Now, CxxxxC is NOT the same when it comes to military! When you have CxxxxC spacing, you will need to defend those cities BIGTIME because you have less cities and losing 1 city is MUCH more disastrous than when you have more cities around. CxxC can be defended more easily AND you get extra military police happiness in your cities at the same time by transfer cascading units across cities.

In the end, what format is best for Deity level? Obviously CxxC...or you'll become the AI's breakfast

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Play CxxxxC on simultaneous moves over the internet and you´ll be named king of the noobs in notime

 

[Spoonwood]

Pyrrhos et alia,

How do you think CxxxC stacks up vs. CxxC and CxxxxC?

 

[Pyrrhos]

Pyrrhos et alia,

How do you think CxxxC stacks up vs. CxxC and CxxxxC?

I've already replied to that:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Pyrrhos]

@ Northern Wolf.
When someone disagrees and puts forth his reasons like you do, there is no problem. What I hate is people, like many on this thread, with whom a conversation is impossible as it would look something like this:

P: "(statement)"
X: "You don't undertand these things, I do"
P: "Ok, so enlighten me please"
X: "You're wrong"
P: "Yes, so I've gathered. But why?"
X: "Because I am right!"
P: "That's not a satisfactory explanation"
X: "Yes it is"
P: "No, because you haven't told me WHY I am wrong and you are right"
X: "Yes I have"
P: "Then tell me again in case I missed it"
X: "I am right because you're wrong"
P: "Oh dear, here we go again"
X: "Everyone who is anybody agrees with me"
P: "Yeah right!"
X: "You're a nobody, you're the King of Noobs and I'm right and you're wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah

In my opinion people like X should be banned from posting anywhere in cyber space as they contribute nothing positive whatsoever.

PS. I haven't the time right now to go through and reply to all your points. All I can say now is that some are valid and some aren't. Furthermore, I think you too confuse what really is "loose placement, usually CXXXC" with CXXC.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Play CxxxxC on simultaneous moves over the internet and you´ll be named king of the noobs in notime

Oh dear, I thought everyone already knew that the name of "The King of All Noobs In Notime" is Hasdrubal Barca.

 

[Pyrrhos]

pyrrhos

CxxxxC DOES generate more production
CxxxxC DOES attain higher population
CxxxxC DOES have greater placement options

but have you forgotten that you can DOUBLE the # of cities within the same land tract???? Economically speaking, if you use CxxC you get twice the number of cities but half the tiles per city so economically, it is similar. Now, CxxxxC is NOT the same when it comes to military! When you have CxxxxC spacing, you will need to defend those cities BIGTIME because you have less cities and losing 1 city is MUCH more disastrous than when you have more cities around. CxxC can be defended more easily AND you get extra military police happiness in your cities at the same time by transfer cascading units across cities.

In the end, what format is best for Deity level? Obviously CxxC...or you'll become the AI's breakfast

First, I have no problem with this kind of post as it is civil in tone and the poster has put forward his/her own reasons!

When I come across this basic, fundamental and/or underlying argument - "The AI's expansion will stop yours at a certain, given and immutable point no matter which city layout you use, therefore "tight placement, usually CXXC" is vastly superior because you have twice the number of cities, twice the number of citizens and use every tile" - my first reactions are:

* Why hasn't anybody asked the salient question WHY the AI manages to box you in? It is not as simple as "Because at higher levels, the AI starts with more units and pays less shields for every improvement, wonder and unit". People forget that the AI uses a very loose placement, roughly CXXXXXC, and culture in order to get as much territory as possible! An AI that used "tight placement, usually CXXC" would soon be "player meat"

* It may be true that the AI's initial burst of expansion at the highest difficulty levels on tiny to small maps is enough to box the human player in before the greater skill of the human has a chance to come into play and that, as a consequence, "tight placement, usually CXXC" is the only way to get enough towns and population to counter that. However, it is not everyone who plays Demigod-Sid on tiny-small maps. Furthermore, there are many indications that "loose placement, ususlly CXXXC" is superior even under those conditions

* There is no way in H... that "tight placement, usually CXXC" can produce twice as many settlers. Only two settler factories can do that and there is nothing that forbids other layouts to have two as well. Bottom line- a settler costs 2 pop and 30 shields even when using "tight placement, usually CXXC"

* In order to get those "tight placement, usually CXXC"-towns to cities (post-despotism), the player has to prioritise food production over shield production and irrigate many tiles that should have been mined

* Oh dear, another person who gets their enjoyment of Civ from placing highly in the HoF and GOTM only and, incorrectly as it turns out, believes that the only way to achieve success is via "tight placement, usually CXXC"

 

[timerover51]

Pyrrhos, you are not going to get the opposition to change their minds, and they are not going to get you to change yours. It is starting to get pretty nasty. Maybe it would be easier to agree to disagree, and go on from there. I am not going to change my style of play because someone finds that CxxC spacing works for him. Maps that are an endless expanse of tightly packed cities and terrain blanketed by rails over every tile in site arouse in me a strong feeling of revulsion, but that is me and my background. Some people evidently like maps that look that way. Hopefully, they will not become city planners and adopt the same view of green space. Have enough problems with some of the local town governments whose motto is "If it is green, PAVE IT!"

 

[Chamnix]

Actually Pyrrhos did change his mind - he started advocating for CxxxxC and is now a backer of CxxxC. Regardless of how many x's you think belong, you want 12 citizens per city. Because your cities will not be in a uniform grid, this generally comes out somewhere between CxxC and CxxxC.

I have not seen anybody say anything negative about 12 C/C, and I'm not sure why there is so much discussion about what approach would be second best.

 

[Aabraxan]

* Why hasn't anybody asked the salient question WHY the AI manages to box you in? It is not as simple as "Because at higher levels, the AI starts with more units and pays less shields for every improvement, wonder and unit". People forget that the AI uses a very loose placement, roughly CXXXXXC, and culture in order to get as much territory as possible! An AI that used "tight placement, usually CXXC" would soon be "player meat"

Just because the AI uses CxxxxxC doesn't mean it's a good idea. The AI may be trying to grab territory faster, but that doesn't mean that it's using that ground more efficiently. While the AI boxing you in may not be as simple as more starting units and lower shield costs, that certainly plays a role. In some games, I have considered using CxxxxxC (5 x's there), then backfilling to make up a CxxC empire. I've never actually done it, but I suspect that you run into pretty horrendous corruption in short order.

* It may be true that the AI's initial burst of expansion at the highest difficulty levels on tiny to small maps is enough to box the human player in before the greater skill of the human has a chance to come into play and that, as a consequence, "tight placement, usually CXXC" is the only way to get enough towns and population to counter that. However, it is not everyone who plays Demigod-Sid on tiny-small maps. Furthermore, there are many indications that "loose placement, ususlly CXXXC" is superior even under those conditions

As you might imagine, I have my doubts that CxxxxC is superior on tiny-small maps at DG/Sid. However, as I have never beaten anything even close to those conditions, I can't speak from experience.

* There is no way in H... that "tight placement, usually CXXC" can produce twice as many settlers. Only two settler factories can do that and there is nothing that forbids other layouts to have two as well. Bottom line- a settler costs 2 pop and 30 shields even when using "tight placement, usually CXXC"

Perhaps not twice as many, but I do think that CxxC will produce more settlers per tile in territory than CxxxxC. Why? Because with CxxC, there are more food boxes being simultaneously filled. This isn't so apparent in the very early game, when even CxxC only has 5-8 towns down, but once you get, say half a continent subdued and start putting down specialist farms at CxC, it's pretty impressive.

* In order to get those "tight placement, usually CXXC"-towns to cities (post-despotism), the player has to prioritise food production over shield production and irrigate many tiles that should have been mined

Wouldn't you prioritize food production in the early game anyway?

 

[Spoonwood]

"As you might imagine, I have my doubts that CxxxxC is superior on tiny-small maps at DG/Sid. However, as I have never beaten anything even close to those conditions, I can't speak from experience."

Then try it!

Concerning getting out enough territory: In my most recent game I've played with the Iroquois on Deity. I've used basically a CxxxC spacing (looser in some spots, tighter in others). How much territory have I gotten out? Unless I've counted wrong, I already have 17 cities and I haven't finished my ReX quite yet. It's a Huge map with 15 randomly selected tribes.
A screenie:

 

[Pyrrhos]

Quote: "Wouldn't you prioritize food production in the early game anyway?"

Yes and no. And no and yes.

You want food to grow pop to build settlers, workers, work as many tiles as possible, gather commerce for gold and beakers.

You want shields to build settlers, workers and military units plus, at the very least, granaries in order to ½ pop build times, barracks in order to produce veterans and marketplaces in order to get a 50% commerce increase and for the lux happiness multiplier.

So yes. And no.

 

[Rodent]

Writing in Bold to get attention. Pardon Me

It is up to the player whether to use CxxC or CxxxxC . Heck, i don't even use these city placement patterns. The Benefits of Each style of Placement has been put in Clear Concise terms.

Relax Guys, after all, CivIII is a game, you are meant to enjoy it.

 

[Mursi lives]

* There is no way in H... that "tight placement, usually CXXC" can produce twice as many settlers. Only two settler factories can do that and there is nothing that forbids other layouts to have two as well. Bottom line- a settler costs 2 pop and 30 shields even when using "tight placement, usually CXXC"

Sure, nothing forbids an OCP civ to get 2 early settlers factories, except that it makes your military even weaker. Seizing a big territory without the units to defend it is a good recipe to die quickly.
Also settler and worker factories need to remain under 6 citizens to be efficient. So they cant use their extra space.

Perhaps not twice as many, but I do think that CxxC will produce more settlers per tile in territory than CxxxxC. Why? Because with CxxC, there are more food boxes being simultaneously filled. This isn't so apparent in the very early game, when even CxxC only has 5-8 towns down, but once you get, say half a continent subdued and start putting down specialist farms at CxC, it's pretty impressive.

Pyhrros will probably answer that they fill their boxes slower, but more cities actually produce more food, even if they share their good tiles. Why? because of the central tiles. A city central tile produces 2 fpt and uses no citizen. So it is basically an already irrigated already roaded 4fpt tile.

Why hasn't anybody asked the salient question WHY the AI manages to box you in? It is not as simple as "Because at higher levels, the AI starts with more units and pays less shields for every improvement, wonder and unit". People forget that the AI uses a very loose placement, roughly CXXXXXC, and culture in order to get as much territory as possible! An AI that used "tight placement, usually CXXC" would soon be "player meat"

It is actually as simple as ... a 2nd starting settler.

IMO the most salient question is "Why, with everything half-priced (or quarter-priced depending of the traits!), 2 starting settlers, a starting military and no anarchy period, seven DG/deity AI civs still manage to be crushed by humans on standard map?
The answer may well be: because 2/3 of their tiles remain unused until they research sanitation.

In some games, I have considered using CxxxxxC (5 x's there), then backfilling to make up a CxxC empire. I've never actually done it, but I suspect that you run into pretty horrendous corruption in short order

It will be horrendous if you do that systematically. However doing it with just a couple of towns to claim a rich food area helped me a lot. Also if you are religious pop-rushing temples in your those towns may drive the AI settlers in another direction. (Towards another AI ).

 

[TheOverseer714]

I'm yet to see any evidence of superority, much less vastness. Another useless argument thread that proves nothing, helps no one, and is a general waste of everyones time. Congratulations are in order.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Ah well, noone would expect you to see anything anyway, so no surprise there. The conundrum is that if you think it's such a waste of time, why a) read, and b) post?

PS. In post #67, you're one of the "people" I covered by the x, well done!

 

[TheOverseer714]

I guess I find your attempts to enlighten the rest of us amusing enough to follow along. You are funny in your hypocrisy, you tell everyone else how inflexible they are, and then proceed to demonstrate your inflexibility. What I find is there are many ways to win and enjoy this game, including yours, as you seem happy with it, but you seem to feel there is only one way....yours. If anyone plays differently than you, they are stupid and inflexible. But since it is a free world, just keep it up, we need someone, errr, something to laugh at.

 

[Spoonwood]

Mursi lives,

"The answer may well be: because 2/3 of their tiles remain unused until they research sanitation."

The AI doesn't fight wars tactically. It doesn't have goals. It doesn't use combined arms effectively enough. It builds too many defensive units in proportion to offensive units for aggressive warring, etc. Even builder players who read the War Academy articles here and peak at the AIs cities when they found embassies can figure this sort of stuff out. There exists far more stupidities to the AI than just not using all, or enough of the tiles.

Overseer,

"You are funny in your hypocrisy, you tell everyone else how inflexible they are, and then proceed to demonstrate your inflexibility."

I have to disagree with you about Pyrrhos here. Didn't he say and even show why he thought CxxxC better than both CxxxxC, and CxxC once he presented the statistics? Sounds like flexibility to me.

"What I find is there are many ways to win and enjoy this game, but you seem to feel there is only one way....yours."

Where do you see him saying this?

General comment:

What seems most interesting about all this debate seems that CxxxC keeps getting ignored or shoved aside for some strange reason. But why? Doesn't terrain often force "CxxxxC" players towards CxxxC? And doesn't wanting to use 12 tiles per city force "CxxC" players towards CxxxC? And what about Ginger Ale's article on city placement. Does it really treat CxxxC fairly?

I mean as a "con" he lists (here http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/city_placement.php)

"It takes more than 1 turn to get from city to city with roads and a 1 move unit."

So what? Plenty of players know you only need your best defense at your borders, so moving units from your captial to your first ring of cities in 1 turn doesn't really matter all that much.

"Won't get in as many cities as tighter placement, so you lose out on benefits of having more cities in a tighter pattern like more unit support"

Sure, but for the same number of settlers you have more overall territory. You also have a better selection of tiles, so that you can get *more commerce* to offset the *supposed* unit support problem.

So, Ginger Ale's cons for CxxxC stop making sense, or come out rather weak. But, how many people do we hear advocating CxxxC? How many people do we have pointing that CxxxC unlike CxxC, which can't exploit hospitals, and CxxxxC, which doesn't use so much space prior hospitals... *that CxxxC uses a fair amount of space prior hospitals AND that it can exploit hospitals*? In other words... CxxxC works well all game long, while both CxxxxC and CxxC come out weaker in one era or another. Why don't we have more people pointing this sort of information out? The only relevant debate to me seems like which works better... loose CxxxC or tight CxxxC? And that's a damn tricky question if you ask me, as I can see that varying rather easily with map condition and terrain (how many rivers around... how many luxuries... how much coast, etc.).

 

[Tone]

Why hasn't anybody asked the salient question WHY the AI manages to box you in? It is not as simple as "Because at higher levels, the AI starts with more units and pays less shields for every improvement, wonder and unit". People forget that the AI uses a very loose placement, roughly CXXXXXC, and culture in order to get as much territory as possible!

Why is it not because of higher production and extra units? I don't get boxed in at lower levels unless the map configuration places me in a position where the only path of expansion is through the AI's core area. I don't get boxed in at Monarch level, even though the AI has a slightly greater production advantage and a few spare units. Of course there will come a point when there is no more room to settle but normally I will feel that I have gained my fair share and will then look to either play peacefully with what I have or look to aquire new lands depending upon what type of game I want to play. I really only come under any consistent pressure when I play DG or above. Is it just coincidence that this is when the AI gets a free settler. I think not but if I am missing something please tell me.

An AI that used "tight placement, usually CXXC" would soon be "player meat"

Are you able to justify that statement please? My opinion on this statement is the opposite of yours but I don't see how either of us can back it up with evidence.