16-11-2000 19:25									#1
	which is better? Increase Your PM Length

Cities spaced far enough apart so they can utilize all the sqaures they can...or...cities closer together so you'll have more cities for production?

Also, has anyone ever seen the AI use a carrier?
I was playing a game yesterday, and these bombers were coming out of nowhere...I sent planes and ships all over the place and couldn't find a carrier. Is the AI just sending it's bombers out on suicide missions knowing they won't have enough fuel to return?

	16-11-2000 19:30									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The city spacing debate is ongoing. You can play very effectively using either approach.

From what I've read, you need to change the rules.txt to make the AI use carriers. AI bombers never crash.

	16-11-2000 19:41									#3
	Remove this text

Thanks Dave!

Well in that case I'll keep spacing my cities until someone can prove it's better otherwise.

Damn...didnt know that AI bombers never crash...how else does the AI cheat?

	16-11-2000 19:52									#4
	Remove this text

I think it all depends on personal style. There are advantages to both methods. In short term games where I know a city will not reach it's maximum potential (utilization of all squares), I don't care if city zones overlap. If I am playing a long term game where I know I'll need some large powerhouse cities in the future, I make sure they are spaced accordingly.

	16-11-2000 20:06									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

RTS, what you're asking is the age old question, "Which is better, Perfectionist Expansionism or ICS (Infinite City Sleaze)?"

Either way will win a game. It depends on your skill level with each, size of the world for a particular game, the level of difficulty at which you are playing, and the version of the game you are using.

I've found that using MGE, small world, deity, raging hordes, ICS is easier to win with. PE can still win a game but it's more difficult.

As a matter of fact, I believe it was DaveV who put together the best thread regarding ICS. If somebody else doesn't post it before I come back, I'll try to find it and post it.

Here it is. Enjoy. It's superb!
[url="http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/wittgenstein/davev's_ics_strategy.htm"]http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/wittgenstein/davev's_ics_strategy.htm[/url]

------------------
Frodo lives!
[This message has been edited by kcbob (edited November 16, 2000).]

	16-11-2000 20:36									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Thanks for posting the link... I was looking for it, and then got lost reading old threads

In MP games, I go overlapping cities. Since everybody is aggressively going for turf, if you limit yourself to no overlap, you run out of room to start additional cities. If I get a good four special pattern on the start, I will usually build my first two cities almost on top of each other so each can utilize two specials.
Less corruption that way, and you get your cities down fast.

	17-11-2000 00:59									#8
	Put an end to popups!

i personally often overlap in order to fit in cities more efficiently.

also, in small free spaces i always fund cities which remain small...

	17-11-2000 05:25									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

drake - the game is all about power. To have power you must have power bases - cities. Each city contributes the tools of power - gold, science and production. You can put down 10/100 overlapping cities, linked by a road system, much faster than building them in the ideally placed perfectionist mode.

The game is about territory, but in the initial stage you must to have enough force to threaten your opponents' territories, as well as defending your own. The best method of defence is attack!

Suppose you share your continent with the Mongols. Would you rather have 30 cities building chariots and diplos or just five?

I am an ICS player at heart - there is nothing wrong with the Perfectionist approach. However, in my limited experience of MP it is imperative to have a power surge from turn one. That means building cities close together, if only to have enough caravan production for a key wonder or two.

----------------

SG (2)

	17-11-2000 06:05									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

drake... yes, territory is important. And yes, you should take as much as you can. But there is a finite amount of land... especially when everbody is fighting for the same land. Let me put it this way... If you and I both have the same amount of land, and I have 20 cities with some overlap, and you have 12 cities with no overlap... I'll take my chances

	17-11-2000 10:36									#12
	Tired of ads?

Im sure i play quite differnt then most people here but i always build my cities very close, in 2x2x and 1x1x. The key to building cities close is to improve the land that you have. You also must take into consideration of how much food you will be able to give the city once it is reaching maximum space size. One place that i build cities even closer togther is port cities on the ocean. make a harbor and you increase your food automatically. with these cities i try and cover as much of the ocean as possible and leave the land spaces for cities inland. this helps to boost your trade faster as well.

Moker

------------------
Im here to play civ. Screw all of this political BS. Give me a game of civ with good players, that are more than just robots, and im having fun. I bet everyone else is too. Who cares who wins or loses? Its better to make friends than make enemies. Who knows you might run into a very important person on here.

Oh yeah EyesOfNight is the most pathetic person i have ever ment in my life.

	17-11-2000 12:14									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Assuming average terrain(whatever that is) then I believe an ICS type start is best.Then bleed out "settler" cities at some point.


[This message has been edited by Smash (edited November 17, 2000).]

	17-11-2000 20:07									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Those explanations are much more sufficient...thank you guys. Does anyone have a better argument for going perfectionist rather than ics?

Having "sleaze" everywhere doesn't set well with my empire, but neither does sitting last on the power graph. I prefer a little of both worlds. But the method of attaining both (that I use) is time consuming and requires good diplomatic skill......it also requires a great deal of patience, which I have seen a lack of in the mp world.....



What does anyone think of this?

	17-11-2000 20:11									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that's about the best graph/chart I've ever seen in my life. All I seem to be able to do is keyboard characters in Courier font.

But with regards to your question, I'm finding that it's easier to start ICS and work my way to PE (Perfectionist Expansionism) through "bleeding" as Smash referred to. If I try to start PE, it is much tougher.

------------------
Frodo lives!

	18-11-2000 10:13									#16
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

A part of the argument for sleazing is that the cost of building city improvements doesn't pay off as compared to establishing more small cities and building units.

I lack any impirical basis for challenging that but I suspect where the balance truly falls depends on how long the game lasts. That is because the benefit of improvements grows exponentially as the game progesses. The marketplace alone may not pay as compared to establishing a dozen or three more cities, but what about when a bank, stock exchange and superhighways are added (plus three good routes, of course)?

If the sleazer, with all his units, can finish off the AI before the perfectionist's strategy would have had time to come to fruition (or, in MP can, I take it, get at the perfectionist before the exponential benefits cut in) then his strategy may well appear superior.

No surprise to find that exponents of ICS appear to be militarily aggressive whereas perfectionists mostly depend (early on at least) upon good defence.

But I harbour doubts. If the perfectionist can get onto the attack militarily (as a means of long term defence) and make use of the windows of opportunity which exist when technically more advanced units temporarily can overcome the defence advantage which exists pre-howie; plus bog the sleazer down at a front line far enough away from his home cities then I suspect that the balance will steadily swing to the perfectionist the longer the game lasts.

I rather imagine that one of the tactical questions to be answered in MP is how to make use of the diplo/spy? Easy for the sleazer - he just destroys improvements or bribes the fat perfectionist cities, dealing hard blows to his opponent thereby. But how to hit the sleazer? His little cities are hardly worth giving up a diplomat to acquire (briefly no doubt) by bribery and they have no improvements to destroy?

Certainly the perfectionist must (1) try to deny the sleazer HG. If he can't achieve that he must (2) organise his research path with an eye to making HG obsolete asap. Maybe he also (3) asks the diplomatic corps (in collaboration with the military) to look very hard indeed for the city with HG in it?

In time, these matters will be tested. We owe it to those who devised the game to demonstrate that no one strategy can always prevail. SO DEATH TO ICS I SAY. LET THE SLEAZER BEWARE, THE CARAVAN HAS HIM IN ITS SIGHTS.
[This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited November 17, 2000).]

	18-11-2000 10:35									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

wow, I leave for a day and come back to all these very useful replies. thanks everyone.

ok...one more =)

for those of you who place cities close together, about how close is the best?

	18-11-2000 10:39									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

All 20 square usage works best... A fair ration between food, shields and arrows and all is perfect.

	18-11-2000 10:46									#22
	Tired of ads?

How close? As close as I can. As long as each city has some basic resources to work with, who cares.
I don't need every city to grow to giant size. I've built cities when all they have is a few squares to work with... but maybe I built it as a choke point, a place to monitor "incursions", take advantage of a resource I missed, access to an ocean... whatever

	17-11-2000 23:00									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

ICS people say:

Expand! Expand! Expand! More! More! More! We don't care if our empire is made up of shacks and shanty towns!

Perfectionists say:

Get the hell off of my buffalo square you goddam plague of locusts! Our grand metropolis is trying to complete a stock exchange!

ICS people say:

What is....Stock Exchange?

Thats what I relate to players who only use Ics- a plague....a sleazy plague

But I say do whatever you find to be the most fun...thats whats most important after all.

	18-11-2000 01:43									#24
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And just a further point when it comes to MP. The days of building on a four special spot are passing into the night. Unless you are willing to agressively defend those squares, somebody is going to appear our of nowhere and build a city right on one of them. If I find gold, I build on it!

	18-11-2000 01:50									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Love to play you sometime ming....

	18-11-2000 01:55									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

hehe..nothing worse than seeing a vet pike with settler on your gold mountain in no city bribe games.
Building on specials is not as viable on 1x.2x you are just asking for trouble if you leave your specials "open"

	22-11-2000 10:42									#28
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well, the AI tends to have overlaps of about two squares on each side of a city. So I figure either more than that or less than that must be right....

Jim W, I think it's pretty inevitable that cities will grow until they run out of food. In republic or democracy, it will happen very quickly because of WLTD. Even under non-trade governments, you'll still grow until you don't have any more food, and then maybe go hungry. Don't worry about it. However many citizens your available land can support, grow the city to that size. Size 8 or size 12 is often good, so that you can skip the aqueduct or sewer. If you've got a small area in between cities, put a city there and just build settlers from it.

	22-11-2000 20:26									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

No, on the mine; the city displaces it. As to distance when sleazing, I try to keep them all within three of at least one other. That way, with roads, I can slide troops to the threatened city from at least one other. (In the old, old days, this troop shift used to be called the "Avalon Hill shuffle" after a similar practice in those old war games.)
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited November 22, 2000).]