Where to build the second city?

To the topic starter-

Why dont you read Cracker's opening plays at war academy? its a nice article that will help you to calculate good city sites yourself
 
I think the OP probably quit reading this thread quite some time ago. I apologize to any I may have offended, arguing about minor details serves no one well. I would make a lousy diplomat, though unfortunately most real diplomats are even worse.
 
In my opinion, the choke point should be no later than third or just forget the stupid thing and start building your military right now. If you do not move to claim your intended borders, you won't have any borders the AI doesn't want you to have. (Which of course would be... none!)
 
I don't think I've ever used thumbnails, so I'm afraid that I can't be of much more help on thumbnails. But I did take a look at D.N. Pacem's "Conscientious [Somethingorother] Empire" . . . the exact name escapes me. He did something with "Attachment tags," that made thumbnails work. I've seen it before, but don't know where the numbers inside the attachment tags come from. You might try looking at his posts?
 
Tell that to Nelson at Trafalgar or the Nile. :lol:

The major battles throughout the age of sail were made up of fleets built around cores of of the strongest ships. That means 1st and 2nd rates. The 1st and 2nd rates were always the lesser number, but that was because of upkeep costs. Like modern aircraft carriers of today, which are their descendants, strategy wise. The numbers you quote from the RN are during peacetimes. That is when the 1st and 2nd rates are laid up in reserve and the smaller vessals played a stronger role because they are cheaper to maintain. No need for a huge main battlefleet, just cruisers, mostly doing anti piracy patrols overseas and showing the flag to scare the little guys. During wartime, the RN employed many more 1st and 2nd rates. Since the 1600's the number of capital ships being deployed has steadily reduced with major battles of 40-60 liners a side during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the mid 1600's being reduced to maybe 15-25 a side by the early 1800's. BTW, the 3rd rate 74 was a liner and as it was in the late 1700's, more than a match for any 1600's liner of a 100+.

The 1st/2nd rates were flagships, nothing more. They did not appreciably add to the fighting strength of a fleet, despite the number of guns (in part because of the difficulty of building an adequate floating gun platform within the technology of the day); they were built larger to house the command staff & its ancillaries--and were still cramped. It is notable that all attempts to build even bigger gun platforms were failures in practice--the Spanish were notorious for this--in terms of combat effectiveness versus size. The aircraft carrier is not the descendent of these behemoths because it does dispose of enormous organic firepower in the form of its airwing, as compared to all other ships.

And the dates I quote--1794 & 1814--span a 20 year period when the RN was, except for the 18 or so months of the Peace of Amiens, continuously at war. It was stretched to the limit the entire time, blockading France, controlling the Med, patrolling the West Indies, reducing garrisons all around the globe, convoying merchants, etc. The only bottoms it relegated or placed in reserve were ones it couldn't effectively maintain or had no use for. These included things like the failed 4th rate class, but also the behemoths that the RN had no other use for. The numbers tell the tale: the first rates never ruled the seas, the 3rd rates did. . . and frigates saw even more use.

And you might even query Nelson on the subject, who, shortly before the Nile, said, "Frigates! Were I to die at this moment, want of frigates would be found engraved on my heart!"

So there is ample reason to emphasize frigates within the game. I agree that including a 74 would have been a good idea, but so would including any number of other favorites. Given that seapower in this game isn't as important--in general and overall--as it was in history, it isn't a serious omission. In game terms, a 74 would probably not have a lot to do.

kk
 
Rubbish. I already covered why there were fewer numbers of the larger ships in my previous post so I wont go back into that. If those 3 deckers were just flagships and useless for battle, why then were literally hundreds of them built by the nations of Europe during the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's?

Indeed. But since I didn't say they were useless for battle, it isn't a question I need answer. Though I will observe that I doubt, strongly, the nations of Europe built hundreds, ie, at least 200, 1st and 2nd rates during the period.

What I actually observed is that they did not offer enough combat gain to justify the effort in making fleets primarily composed of them, and in fact, the fleets were not.

Sort makes light of your statement, don't it. Here is the line up at Tralfalgar. . . . As you can see, 1/3 of the battleline of both sides was composed of 1st/2nd rates. To say these ship were of no consequence is idiotic.

Gratuitous comment aside, 1st/2nd rates made up 7 vessels on the British side; 3 rates made up 20 (80 gun vessels were 3rd rates, not 2nd). So that's a ratio of 1/4, which is roughly what the RN disposed of on average throughout the period. Nor did I say, or imply, that these ships were of no consequence. I'm saying--as I have throughout--that a 3rd rate much more truly reflects the practice of the time than a 1st rate & is much more characteristic a unit to include hypothetically in CIII. I'm further adding that 1st and 2nd rates were not proportionally more powerful than the cost of building, manning, and running these ships. They were definitely not better buys, and the navies of the time seem to agree with me.

Take a look at the casualties of the frigates. You'll note they had none. What does that tell you of their role in fighting? Nelson's line about want of frigates was about needing them for scouting, not for fighting in the line of battle as you seem to be implying above.

But I've never addressed their role in a fleet action, have I? Only their addition to the naval establishments of the time, which was considerable in numbers and import. Certainly enough to justify their inclusion in CIII--which is the point of all this ultimately.

The battleship was a prestige ship, yes, but it also was the backbone of the naval strategic forces. The battleship projected the naval power of a nation. The RN Grand Fleet of ww1 was noted for its composition of capital ships, not for its cruisers and destroyers and its role was to dominate the seas with those capital ships. The aircraft carrier took over that strategic role from the battleship during ww2 and that is why aircraft carriers are the ships of the line of today (though one could possibly claim the same for nuclear ballistic missile subs, too). It is their strategic roles where these types are related, not their weaponry, and that is what I meant when I wrote the aircraft carrier is the liner of today.

Yes, "battleship" derives from "line of battle ship". But as is shown, the great majority of line of battle ships were 3rd rates. So equating the carrier to the line of battle ship is ambiguous at best. In fact, it has no equivalent in the age of sail navies; there was no ship that projected its power nor fulfilled its role, strategically or operationally. It is definitely not the equivalent of a 1st rate.

The numbers you site are from wartimes, true, but not at the height of the Napoleonic period's naval wars. 1794 was before things really got started and 1814 is after the naval war was done and the RN had no real opponent anymore. It seems you got your info googling this site:

http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm

But you should have investigated that site a little better (or maybe you did, but decided to ignore what it said that was contrary to your own opinions).

This is gratuitous, argumentum ad hominem, and in fact wrong. I got my figures from The Frigates, by James Henderson CBE, 1994 edition, pg 169. I don't have time today to continue with this, as I have a train to catch, but I will observe that one of the sites you list below agrees with me that contemporaneous builders favored the 74 above the 1st and 2nd rates, and deliberately made them the backbone of the fleet.

kk
 
I have to wonder what this has to do with the original post...

But if you are busy in here arguing to no purpose, you are keeping the rest of the board free for others to enjoy :lol:
 
When it comes to comparing ships - of any period - tanks or airplanes, simple numbers rarely tell the whole story. While two ships may both be rated 64-gun, 4th rate ships-of-the-line, one may carry 36lb guns on the lower gundeck and 18lb guns on the main gun deck whilst the other carried 24lb and 12lb respectively. The Italian Littorio-class WW II battleships may have been very impressive on paper but suffered from the Pugliese under-water, anti-torpedo "protection" system and a lack of radar. German armour piercing shells often failed to detonate after impacting at an oblique angle. On paper, the Soviet Yak-3 was inferior to the German FW 190, yet pilots of the latter were told not to engage Yak-3s above/under a certain altitude.

Going back to the usefulness of the 1st Rates, how come Victory led Nelson's column and Royal Sovereign Collingwood's? Because these larger ships were sturdy enough to sustain the inevitable pounding they received from (almost) the entire Allied Fleet during the approach! The lack of success enjoyed by Spanish three-deckers had nothing to do with the merits of the ships themselves but rather inept Spanish seamanship. In British hands, former Spanish and French three-deckers performed admirably. In fact, the difference in seamanship/fighting ability between British ships and French/Spanish ships was such that a British two-decker of 74-guns was the equal of a French or Spanish first rate. Just take the example of HMS Superb which at the battle off Algeciras sailed between the Spanish Real Carlos and San Hermengildo, each of 112 guns, and made them destroy each other.

Another point - are you aware that one of the reasons ships of Catholic nations fought less well is that the bodies were kept onboard? Unless there was a body, the widow was unable to remarry as technically her husband was not known to be dead. Now how well do you think a ship such as the French Bucentaure could fight with some 300-400 dead littering her decks?
 
Hopeless. You can't fix stupid.
 
Then why try, Miss Brains? :rolleyes: If it is not to your liking, do not read!

I think you'll find that Snarkhunter, Meisen and myself enjoy these exchanges of information and opinions. That you lack the ability to either understand and/or enjoy such debates does not give you the right to dictate what others can or cannot do. We will not dumb down for your benefit nor will we only discuss what is of interest to you.

Like it or lump it, live with it!
 
. . . . I think you'll find that Snarkhunter, Meisen and myself enjoy these exchanges of information and opinions. That you lack the ability to either understand and/or enjoy such debates does not give you the right to dictate what others can or cannot do. We will not dumb down for your benefit nor will we only discuss what is of interest to you. . . .
There's nothing wrong with enjoying these exchanges, Pyrrhos, but the thread (abandoned though it may be) was about placing a second city. The discussion that's going on between you, Snarkhunter and meisen does seem better suited to the World History forum.
 
I found the read most interesting, thank you for the debate, ill-placed as it was
 
I found the read most interesting, thank you for the debate, ill-placed as it was

So very ill placed indeed.

My opinion on the matter (despite the fact that the creator of this thread is probably hundreds of turns from the moment he posted this) would be for him to get the wines like everyone's telling him to, to settler factory. The chokepoint should come a bit later, maybe city 4-5, a result of the factory. The chokepoint is something I wouldn't really need, but something I would start a war for, because a city on a spot like that makes for a very useful canal. Beats going around a chunk of land to get to the other side.

As for city placement, I prefer to build my first cities maybe 6-8 spaces away from each other and fill in the blanks later. That way, in this case, if I were to build something on the choke point, I could contain the other civ (I assume Inca) to a small area of expansion. As a matter of fact, if I were playing that game, I may have gone and built my second city on the chokepoint so that my opponent would not be able to expand.
 
Yeah, but discussions take on a life of their own. When you and some friends are sitting in a pub and with some of you, the subject under discussion changes, do you, and the others talking about the new subject, leave the table you are sitting at and go to another to discuss this new subject?

On the other hand, you probably wouldn't join a book club and then start talking about last week's episode of Battlestar Galactica. But since I'm now as guilty as you, I like your pub metaphor better. Anyone want a drink?
 
Questions to the most common 2nd city answers
It seems everyone's responses (until Meisen's post) supports tight city clusters, with city edges bordering other city edges. I am a newbie (Chieftan) so maybe don't understand the strategic reasons, so here are my questions -
(a) If new cities (1 in size) border other (1) cities to start, how can they grow without getting overcrowded, doesn't this limit future productin capabilities?
(b) I am assuming this is a big anti-corruption strategy, are there other major benefits also in clustering your cities?
(c) I have tried to forward project as much as possible based on wherever the best unclaimed terrain/resources are located and defend the gaps in between. Eventually the cities grow towards each other and the gap is filled. Is there a flaw in this strategy and does the strategy have to change as you move towards Diety?
 
(a) If new cities (1 in size) border other (1) cities to start, how can they grow without getting overcrowded, doesn't this limit future productin capabilities?

Yes, but your cities won't grow past size 12 without a hospital anyway. And by that time, you are already far into the game. If you play an aggressive enough conquest, you can mop up with cavalries. (late middle age)

Even if you play on into the modern age, due to the exponential power-gain nature of the game. Your gain in early turns have more impact than your gain in later turns, thus its worth being more efficient in early turns even if its at the cost of late game efficiency.
If you do need a couple of metro's for some reason, then you can always select a few cities to grow larger at the cost of some of the other cities.

Also: Pop past size 12 adds pollution, and its a bigger pain to keep everyone happy. The bigger production in one city isn't that important, usually 2 size 12 can outproduce 1 size 20. There is also less shield overrun. And no matter what, a single city can never produce more than 1 unit per turn, no matter how productive.

The power of your entire empire as a whole is more important than the power of individual cities.

(b) I am assuming this is a big anti-corruption strategy, are there other major benefits also in clustering your cities?

The mayor anti corruption strategy is the ICS specialist farms in far away land. This has very little to do with the close placement in the core.
We are talking mostly about the core here, the specialist farm land is still way into the future of this game.

A tighter city placement is easier to defend, it will be set up faster, and neighboring cities can share powerful tiles. (one city works it a few turns then an other city works it a turns.)

(c) I have tried to forward project as much as possible based on wherever the best unclaimed terrain/resources are located and defend the gaps in between. Eventually the cities grow towards each other and the gap is filled. Is there a flaw in this strategy and does the strategy have to change as you move towards Diety?

This strategy works on all levels, but on higher levels, you'll be harder pressed and thus you'll notice it more if you are using a better or worse strategy.

With a couple of situational exceptions, its better to expand from your capital outward. Due to the exponential power-gain nature of the game. Getting a productive core city early is important, therefor, your core should be set up first. If you first send settlers to more distant spots before filling in the land in between, it will take more time for the early settlers to reach those spots, thus you will spend more turns with few cities. Also, those cities will be a bit more corrupt.

I hope this helps.
 
Questions to the most common 2nd city answers
It seems everyone's responses (until Meisen's post) supports tight city clusters, with city edges bordering other city edges. I am a newbie (Chieftan) so maybe don't understand the strategic reasons, so here are my questions -
(a) If new cities (1 in size) border other (1) cities to start, how can they grow without getting overcrowded, doesn't this limit future productin capabilities?
(b) I am assuming this is a big anti-corruption strategy, are there other major benefits also in clustering your cities?
(c) I have tried to forward project as much as possible based on wherever the best unclaimed terrain/resources are located and defend the gaps in between. Eventually the cities grow towards each other and the gap is filled. Is there a flaw in this strategy and does the strategy have to change as you move towards Diety?
I see that MAS has already covered most of this. Pyrrhos started a thread on city spacing not too long ago. That thread might prove to be interesting reading for you. It's entitled C-X-X-C or C-X-X-X-X-C?.
 
Indeed, the issue of city density has been chewed over quite thoroughly in recent weeks, and no single answer found to convince all parties. And rather than reiterate it all here, let me propose a slightly different way of looking at the issue, which may accomodate both sides of the debate... or maybe it will just start another flame war. :p
Whether you choose to settle your core densely or sparsely, and whether or not you choose to make specialist farms in your corrupt towns, there comes a time in your expansion when you can gain no more territory by peaceful expansion. This is a significant moment, and there are two things you should do at this point: (1) Decide whether you want to continue expanding by force. Unless you are specifically trying to play peacefully, the answer is probably yes. (2) Look within your empire to see how many tiles in your territory are going unused. You should then seek a way to minimise the number of unused tiles. Pumping up the population of your existing towns to size 12 is usually the most effective solution. If that is not enough, you must either (a) settle more towns, or (b) pump the population of your existing towns beyond size 12. At this point, option b is probably preferable for your strongest towns, while option a gets more appropriate the further you travel from your capital. But if the industrial era is still a long way off, then option a is all you have available, so you might as well use it in your core too.
 
Top Bottom