Traits and city spacing

[Aabraxan]

Well, as with all things Civ, it depends. If that "conquered territory" is the result of early wars and close neighbors, it won't be corrupt enough to warrant specialist farms. If it's on the other continent, spamming the landscape with cities may just create too many points that I have to depend (sorta depends on how fast my front lines are moving). For my continent, everything from the outside edge of my semi-core to the ocean gets paved over with farms. If you run a search for "The Unluckiest Lucky Start," you'll find a story of mine with plenty of screenshots of how I used specialist farms there.

As to size, it's terrain-dependent. However, specialist farms rarely get any city improvements, so most of them are less than size 6. On rare occasion, I'll find one that has enough food to warrant an aque. Obviously, if I can found the town on the river by the food, that's even better.

 

[dexters]

Some cities, given proper imrpovemens can be made marginally productive. Even if they are corrupt, especially under repbulics or democracies. This is not an option in your playstyle?

 

[eamofox]

isnt it a little inappropriate to have one approach to your city spacing? typically a good mix of C4C and C3C/C2C would give you the most well rounded approach.

I have seen a lot of people point out they use their capital and surrounding cities C2C. Is this a popular method? I do C3C for one reason, properly laid roads can have settles plop down very quickly for early expansion, and cities are 1 movement apart from each other. Next productive ring outside my capital may be C4C. I wouldn't C2C what are potentially my best cities, and the first one to get to pop 12 and higher.

When I have a good solid C3C/C4C core that can get units out quickly, I'll start C2C on the outskirts, because at that point its quantity over quality. Corruption is so ridiculous theyll be doing 10 turn workers the entire game without heavy investing that isnt worth it.

I guess my question is, do people really go for C2C around capital? You wont be doing any 1 turn modern armors with that set up.

 

[dexters]

From my experience as a returning player, having lost some of my hangups after being out of it for a while c2c seems very powerful on the higher levels where we can't expand fast enough vis-a-vis AI. It also gives you a very strong opening slingshot where you can have a 2nd and 3rd city with near 0 corruption pumping out settlers and workers.


My question was more pointed towards what to do on conquered lands.

 

[eamofox]

From my experience as a returning player, having lost some of my hangups after being out of it for a while c2c seems very powerful on the higher levels where we can't expand fast enough vis-a-vis AI. It also gives you a very strong opening slingshot where you can have a 2nd and 3rd city with near 0 corruption pumping out settlers and workers.


My question was more pointed towards what to do on conquered lands.

Youre second and third city on C3C will have just as little corruption around your capital than your cities on C2C.

Unconquered lands should be C2C and SCI farms or w/e.

 

[dexters]

Question was about conquered lands after the land grab phase. And I'm not interested in c2c v c3c v c4c debate here.

 

[TheOverseer714]

You build new towns between captured cities, using a mix of spacings. Or you burn enemy cities and use your own spacing. Keeping enemy cities saves having to build settlers, but if it's a higher level, they also culture flip. For each player, it's different.

 

[dexters]

why not build workers/settlers from those captured cities and starve them?

 

[Othniel]

Question was about conquered lands after the land grab phase.

If cities built in newly conquered lands have, say, less than 80% corruption, I will use CxxC spacing. Once I get enough cities that every new one has greater than 80% corruption, I make specialist farms using cxc spacing. This is a very common approach to city spacing.

I know the corruption % for each city from Civ Assist 2.

If my start area is small and AI civs are close, it's likely that some conquered lands will become part of my CxxC "core". Usually though, conquered lands, are so corrupt that cxc spacing is just better. I might use wider spacing at first in those corrupt lands to grab territory and then fill in later to complete the cxc scheme.

Razing cities vs keeping captured cities also will affect the spacing. Razing is normal at higher levels to prevent culture flips. If I did keep a city, it's probably one of the following:

a) lower level difficulty and / or low-culture opponent
b) has a Great Wonder I want
c) not overly corrupt and reasonably well placed such that it will be a productive city in the future

Some cities, given proper imrpovemens can be made marginally productive. Even if they are corrupt, especially under repbulics or democracies. This is not an option in your playstyle?

The shield and maintenance costs for the improvements to make a town "marginally productive" makes that strategy suboptimal.

 

[Aabraxan]

Some cities, given proper imrpovemens can be made marginally productive. Even if they are corrupt, especially under repbulics or democracies. This is not an option in your playstyle?

Sure, it's an option. I build some courthouses to bring some corrupt cities up to a point where they are marginally productive. But I don't build courthouses in cities where they won't do any good. I see no point in spending 80 shields and 1 gpt to turn a 1-shield town into a 2-shield town. OTOH, 80 shields +1 gpt to turn an 8-shield town into a 10-shield town is a different story.

And I do build workers out of captured cities that I don't raze.

 

[TheOverseer714]

why not build workers/settlers from those captured cities and starve them?

I do that when possible. I do that alot. In my recent Huge Pangaea, I had nearly 500 slaves.

 

[Mursi lives]

isnt it a little inappropriate to have one approach to your city spacing? typically a good mix of C4C and C3C/C2C would give you the most well rounded approach.

I have seen a lot of people point out they use their capital and surrounding cities C2C. Is this a popular method? I do C3C for one reason, properly laid roads can have settles plop down very quickly for early expansion, and cities are 1 movement apart from each other. Next productive ring outside my capital may be C4C. I wouldn't C2C what are potentially my best cities, and the first one to get to pop 12 and higher.

When I have a good solid C3C/C4C core that can get units out quickly, I'll start C2C on the outskirts, because at that point its quantity over quality. Corruption is so ridiculous theyll be doing 10 turn workers the entire game without heavy investing that isnt worth it.

I guess my question is, do people really go for C2C around capital? You wont be doing any 1 turn modern armors with that set up.

What is a modern armor? I dont think I ever built a single one .

Well, civ3 games are won or lost usually before IA and almost always before ME. If the game is still undecided then yes, CxxxC/CxxxxC would be great for your core cities. But if you get an undecided IA game with such a loose city placement, you most likely would have already won the same game with tighter city placement.
That means I always space my cities to leave no tile unused before hospitals. (That also means I dont build hospitals ).

 

[Spoonwood]

"As to Number 2, I don't consider that an advantage. As long as I mind my manners and don't bust my rep, I don't need peaceful relations with the AI to continue trading. I can still buy and sell luxes, resources, techs and alliances."

Well maybe... but do you do so as effectively? Do you get as much gold as you could and luxuries and/or tech for as cheap as you could? Doesn't AI attitude go down when you accidently auto-raze cities? Alright... maybe you avoid that... so, I'll concede that. Still... you have at least one fewer trading partner. So, you won't get as much traded goods as you could have... at least in terms of the tech pace. Your war with say the Romans will slow them down tech-wise... especially if you crush them. Also, there comes another problem I'd say.

If you want your cities to become metros with either C3C or C4C (it looks like my spacing better fits C3C looking at my own saves) and you war with someone in the ancient or middle ages, then you need to build units and barracks and maybe even raise your luxury slider a bit if you start losing units and have war unhappiness which negatively effects commerce... or you need specialists in your cities which slow down production and commerce. This doesn't work well with metros, since for a metro you work as better served to build as much infrastructure as possible and more of your own nationality workers, and/or have as much gold to build infrastructure quickly when you can do so (knowing what to build when comes as the trick). Since I usually aim for metros instead of cities, I'd rather maintain peaceful relations with the AI until at least Education, so 2 works out as an advantage. Building barracks and units, and infrastracture at the same time either needs handled very, very carefully to work well or results in inefficiencies, I'd think. I guess builders can all basically do this in the early game to some degree... but they don't necessarily have to do it very well since the AI generally doesn't attack right away. I'd guess playing with raging barbarians might help to sort of manage both... but not quite in the same way as dealing with than a medieval or even ancient age AI.

[You're probably right. I've never had a 20k victory, and almost never build any of those wonders. Of the ones named, the only one I shoot for with any regularity is Smith's.]

Laughs... Almost all of my victories have come as 20k games (the games usually go by quickly), though less so lately. Interestingly enough I have NO domination or conquest vicotries (or a 100k victory... the one I started seemed long time-wise), although I've started war-mongering games or started war-mongering at selective points in some games.

"However, the fastest way to build it is with an MGL."

I forgot about that. Still, you need two great leaders spawned from combat (one for the army, one for the Military Academy). I kind of guess you play as militaristic tribes a lot. It also sounds like you either use or would want lots of artillery for cheap elite wins. I almost never play militaristic civs.

"Once I hit the 90% cieling, where every new town is going to be 90% corrupt, there is no downside to putting down more towns."

Do you consider what sort of help a courthouse and police station might provide? Some of those cities might actually produce more science with a courthouse and police station (at least at certain times in the game if not overall) than a specialist farm or perhaps two specialist farms. Alright... from your comments you do.

 

[eamofox]

What is a modern armor? I dont think I ever built a single one .

Well, civ3 games are won or lost usually before IA and almost always before ME. If the game is still undecided then yes, CxxxC/CxxxxC would be great for your core cities. But if you get an undecided IA game with such a loose city placement, you most likely would have already won the same game with tighter city placement.
That means I always space my cities to leave no tile unused before hospitals. (That also means I dont build hospitals ).

I actually misunderstood the whole C2C etc concept for a momentarily brain fart while writing my last post, and would like to withdrawl it entirely : )

I would have to say I agree with Mursi nearly 100%

Recently I have moded my "huge" maps to be much larger, to have a really long lasting game. I find modern age warfare to be the most exciting part of the game, with all the dynamics of air fighting, paratrooping, missles etc. radar artillery are too much fun.

The only downfall is that the settling lands phase of the game lasts well into the ADs lol. Marching settlers around with a rifleman escort is just plain wrong.

 

[Aabraxan]

"As to Number 2, I don't consider that an advantage. As long as I mind my manners and don't bust my rep, I don't need peaceful relations with the AI to continue trading. I can still buy and sell luxes, resources, techs and alliances."

Well maybe... but do you do so as effectively? Do you get as much gold as you could and luxuries and/or tech for as cheap as you could?

I am not the best trader on these boards by a long shot, but I do believe that I trade effectively.

Doesn't AI attitude go down when you accidently auto-raze cities?

Attitude is different from reputation. After the Ancient Age, I'm generally surprised if the AI is anything other than furious with me. But that doesn't stop them from buying my techs.

. . . . Still... you have at least one fewer trading partner. So, you won't get as much traded goods as you could have... at least in terms of the tech pace. Your war with say the Romans will slow them down tech-wise... especially if you crush them. Also, there comes another problem I'd say.

One less trading partner and one less enemy. You're right, though. An AI's tech pace really, really slows down when you eliminate them. Maybe crushing the Romans means that I won't get their gold. It also means that nobody else will, either.

I've never been quite clear on the effect of eliminating civs on tech costs, but I know it has an impact. I think it lowers the cost, but may be wrong.

. . . . If you want your cities to become metros with either C3C or C4C . . . .

And that is one of the linchpins of the city spacing debate. "If you want your cities to become metros . . . " If I want my cities to become metros, I need to allow for extra tiles for these metros to work, meaning that tiles go unworked until Sanitation (or Shake's). If I want my cities to become metros, then I have to build hospitals, and pay upkeep. One lucky city might get Shakespeare's Theater. if I want my cities to become metros, I have to be ready to clean up population pollution. Some of my cities will get factories, so I'll still have to clean up pollution from them, admittedly.

. . . . you war with someone in the ancient or middle ages, then you need to build units and barracks and maybe even raise your luxury slider . . . . or you need specialists in your cities which slow down production and commerce. This doesn't work well with metros, since for a metro you work as better served to build as much infrastructure as possible . . . . Since I usually aim for metros instead of cities, I'd rather maintain peaceful relations with the AI until at least Education, so 2 works out as an advantage. Building barracks and units, and infrastracture at the same time either needs handled very, very carefully to work well or results in inefficiencies, I'd think. . . . .

I'm sure this is all true, but it's also (as far as AI can tell) based on the premise that you're going to want metros. I don't see any need for them. Does a size-20 metro produce more gold, shields and beakers than a size-12 city on the same terrain? Sure. But it only starts producing more after it hits size 13.

"However, the fastest way to build it is with an MGL."

I forgot about that. Still, you need two great leaders spawned from combat (one for the army, one for the Military Academy).

That's just one MGL more than I would need to build the MA by hand. Not that big of a deal. Truth be told, I usually build the MA by hand, anyway.

I kind of guess you play as militaristic tribes a lot. It also sounds like you either use or would want lots of artillery for cheap elite wins. I almost never play militaristic civs.

I do like militaristic civs. I enjoy an early archer-rush and cheap raxes don't hurt my feelings, either. With that said, many players who are far better than I really don't value militaristic very highly.

"Once I hit the 90% cieling, where every new town is going to be 90% corrupt, there is no downside to putting down more towns."

Do you consider what sort of help a courthouse and police station might provide? Some of those cities might actually produce more science with a courthouse and police station (at least at certain times in the game if not overall) than a specialist farm or perhaps two specialist farms. Alright... from your comments you do.

I almost never build Police Stations, but I do build courthouses. It depends on how much difference the CH is going to make. I use CA2 to judge how much good the CH will do.

 

[dexters]

I havent played Civ3 for over 4 years now and I seem to have forgotten all the rules! The fixed FP in C3C only increase the optimal city limit? No more 2nd core?

Outside of going communism to get production for these acquisitions, is our only option to turn them into specialist farms?

 

[del62]

how is the FP fixed in C3C?

Can you not choose where to build?

 

[dexters]

FP used to give you a 2nd core of low corruption cities. I don't see that in my current game.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . Outside of going communism to get production for these acquisitions, is our only option to turn them into specialist farms?

With the exception of the communism option (& I've still never played a game as a communist gov't), that seems to be the best option. Because of corruption, a 90% corrupt town half a world away will still be pretty hopeless, even if you build a courthouse. Food and specialist output are exempt from corruption, so rather than spend 80 turns building a courthouse, I can start gathering beakers &/or gold immediately.

 

[Bartleby]

I've never been quite clear on the effect of eliminating civs on tech costs, but I know it has an impact. I think it lowers the cost, but may be wrong.

My understanding of this (and I may be wrong) is that if a civ knows techs that you don't, the price of those techs will increase if you eliminate the civ. That's because one factor in the cost of a tech is how many other civs that you know have that tech.