timerover51
Deity
In some respects a better question would be, can you win both ways? If so, then either way works for people.
Tone, I have proven that under the same conditions CXXXXC is vastly superior to strict CXXC. Another pattern has been presented as CXXC, one that actually is CXXXC according to Ginger Ale's definitions. I have investigated that pattern and found it marginally better than CXXXXC - and said so! Yet there are children such as "TheOverseer" who will never accept that they or their opinions could be wrong and see it as their sacred duty to religiously defend CXXC and persecute other opinions.
As can be seen, there are as many towns five squares apart as there are three squares apart. The AVERAGE distance is 4, even if it is possible to move from town to to town but only along certain paths! Therefore, as I have pointed out earlier, Zzark's pattern is neither "loose, usually CXXXC" nor "tight, usually CXXC" - it is a hybrid that has the advantages of both and the disadvantages of neither. IF it is to be placed in one of Ginger Ale's categories, that category is "loose, usually CXXXC" because:
* Each town has, on average, 12 tiles
* The average distance between towns is four even if it is possible to move from town to to town but only along certain paths!
In general, certainly. You can win on chieftain either way on any map. Some players can win on deity either way on some maps. But are there maps/levels that a given person will lose if he places cities suboptimally but could have won with better city placement? I'd say so.
Actually, what I would recommend is that you do is:thnx a ton dude .......btw if it doesnt help can i amail u the specifics......maybe u can help
In general, certainly. You can win on chieftain either way on any map. Some players can win on deity either way on some maps. But are there maps/levels that a given person will lose if he places cities suboptimally but could have won with better city placement? I'd say so.
the experiment itself is biased, that is why cxxxxc comes out on top. you are testing it in a way that far better suits cxxxxc over cxxc
Here's an interesting question/challenge for anyone who dares try... given an 80% water, and we'll even make it archipelago... what's the hardest level you can beat with only 5 cities and ICS spacing?
The question is why did they space that way? Was it to be the most effective in beating the AI? I doubt it.If you check Moonsinger's and SirPleb's spacing in their hall of fame write-ups, you'll of course see a mixture of spacings. Still, I think you'll see that the CxxxC pattern fits their spacing best.
The question is why did they space that way? Was it to be the most effective in beating the AI? I doubt it.
IMO it is because that is the most effective way of increasing your score quickly, as they were not trying to beat the AI as much as trying to beat the score that anyone else had posted. They are both elite players and could beat the AI with any city spacing that you'd care to mention.
Sir Pleb said:City spacing: Because OCN is very low I won't use a very tight spacing. I won't spread them nearly as wide as the AI but I will spread them out more than I usually do. I want each settler to claim a good chunk of territory, to settle on fresh water if at all possible, and to have a reasonably large region of workable tiles. (Twelve at least.)