NaZdReG said:
well earlier on in the thread I had suggested that we use a large map (or bigger) what I meant was that civ 3's maps were bigger at the standard level. explain to me why the top border is at the "north pole tundra" and the south border of the fat cross is at the equator...
*catches up on thread*
Actually, the southern boarder of the fat cross isn't at the equator. It looks like the city's at the northern edge of the northern temperate zone. I can't see any jungle, so you're not even close to the equatorial zone.
NaZdReG said:
sadly aelf I think I have to agree with you.
while the distance upkeep is minimized.. the impact of focusing on this does cost us early wars or critical wonders. i've done 3 playthroughs to 0ad and honestly it puts us in a weaker position then using dot mapped farther spaced optimally placed cities.
perhaps firaxis did finally kill the ics and tight city placement strategies...
its a little sucky but civ 4 is still appealing or we wouldnt be playing
too bad though.. rcp was very useful in civ 3.. resulting in a core of your empire capable of soo much strength.
perhaps one of the better players will expose/unlock weather or not this strat is worth it at all, but atleast I have to take the time to thank those involved for giving it a serious look.
NaZ
The advantage of "RCP" (I get the idea of the strategy, but what does that stand for anyways?) in Civ III was that both commerce and hammers decreased with distance, so there was a lot of incentive to settle close.
In Civ IV, it's the number of cities (rather than distance) that's the determining factor, so settling "junk" cities isn't really worthwhile.
That being said, based on the map above, it would be worthwhile to settle five of those cities: N, NE, E, SE, and SW. I'd also move those cities out by one tile. The slight increase in distance costs is more than made up for by the saving you get for less cities, shifting them around slightly to maximize food. As it is, I'd settle N last, right after NE. It'll be a while before you need those health resources.
I think I'll give this strategy a spin. I usually spread out, trying to maximize resources, floodplains, and rivers in each city's fat cross, rather than settling close. I'd usually try to keep the cities in a ring around the capital, but I've always considered distance costs to be a nuisance, rather than a killer like the number of cities cost. I'd also rather have my initial citizens in each city working resources or floodplains if at all possible, rather than ordinary tiles. Maximum benefit for minimal cost, as it were. It would be rare for a city to share borders with another city, let alone share tiles.
That being said, I was a little skeptical about the advantage of the Specialist Economy until I tried it. Now, I usually shoot for the Pyramids whenever I see stone nearby and I'm not playing a leader with the Financial trait. But unlike the SE, I have a hard time seeing
any benefit of keeping my cities really close, besides being easier to defend.
Edit: I think this strategy might be more worthwhile if you start near the equatorial zone. The resource density is higher, you'll have a lot more grasslands, and you could cut down on your health costs since you could cut down the shared jungles first. You'd need more workers, unfortunately, to carve out you empire from the jungle, though.
