09-03-2001 09:03									#1
	Specialized Cities Tired of ads?

I usually build a SSC in my civilization whether or not I am going for expansionist conquest or perfectionist settlement of AC. But in micromanaging my cities today, it occurred to me that one could specialize cities for the general purposes of science, tax, and production.

A science city would be founded near trade specials, oceans, and rivers, would have library, university, and research facility, and squares that did not produce trade would be converted to Einsteins.

A tax city would also be near trade specials, oceans, and rivers, would have a marketplace, bank, and stock exchange, and sqaures that did not produce trade would be converted IRS agents.

[If a player was more of a military expansionist than a perfectionist, "trade cities" would more often be tax cities than science cities]

A production city would be built near shield specials, forests, and hills, would have factory, manufacturing plant, power plants, and offshore oil rigs, and would basically try to have as many production shields as possible while ignoring trade arrows (and food) to turn out units, space-ship parts, and wonders.

[One could even imagine a "food city" that specialized in food production and sent food caravans to the other types of cities to support the population while they specialized on science, trade, or production.]

Money from the tax cities could be used to help finance production of the city improvements in the science cities and production in the production cities. City improvements would be specific to the type of city, perhaps lowering the overall costs compared to when libraries or marketplaces are spread across many cities.

I know that I do this to some extent in all of my games, having cities where I favor production and others science or taxes, but I was wondering if anyone has applied this strategy in a more pure, or direct sense. And if so, are there real obvious advantages to this micromanagement strategy, or is it not as effective as a well-rounded strategy and not worth the time and effort in the course of an entire game?



------------------
One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not skillful. Subduing the other's military without battle is skillful.

Sunzi, The Art of War

	09-03-2001 15:51									#2
	Support Apolyton

I have read this idea before but, save for the SSC aspect, have not heard from anyone who has carried it through.

I think there may be a flaw in the notion. Say a city with high trade pleases the economic adviser first and leaves the science adviser out on the cold stone streets. Once the marketplace is built and the city is again deciding on the next improvement to build, should it still leave the poor fellow shivering and start work on a bank the 120 shield cost of the bank compared to 80 for a library means a longer delay before the investment pays off. Still more so when the bank is finally taking folks' money, the economic adviser starts blathering about cash flow and the science adviser has developed pneumonia.

The self same trade arrow that underpins the return from the marketplace/bank/stock exchange will underpin an increased return generated by a library. I suspect that rather than concentrating on maximising the return from the shields invested in the improvement it may make better sense to concentrate on maximising the return from the trade arrow. That means building cheaper/quicker return improvements before more expensive ones.

I make an exception to this in the case of factories or (in a coastal city) offshore platforms because those improvements give the first opportunity other than mining and railroads to build up shield production and once shield production is high, city improvement becomes a doddle. Also harbours (but those are cheapish anyway) for WLT-D purposes and for natural growth in a city which would otherwise be delayed by poor agriculture.

And then there is the question of your civ's strategic needs from time to time. Sometimes you are desperate for gold or luxuries, sometimes for knowledge. Doubt that dogma should rule decision making at such times.

Another point is that your suggested approach assumes that the needful tec will always be available. If you are playing a game where you were blessed with a good start you will probably be building improvements in your core cities at a time when you simply don't have an unfettered choice.

As always, I base what I am saying on first principles and gaming experience. A good tester might quickly devise a way to measure the competing approaches to maximising return. I would be interested to see the result.

	09-03-2001 15:57									#3
	Put an end to popups!

To follow on EST's constructive criticism - a small point - the tax rate effects all cities - so if we are at ,say, 30% tax & 70% science your super specialist cities would be wasting trade resource - the SSC would not be making maximum capitol from its tax earnings nor would your cash city gain from its science beakers ...

Now, once the empire's path has been set - buy the world or conquer by technological supremacy - the tax rate can be notched right up to maximise your chosen end and the specialist city makes sense again.

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

	09-03-2001 18:11									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Overall, over time my strategy has evolved regarding specialised cities. When I first started playing Civ, blissfully unaware of the finer workings of the game, I took a very egalitarian approach towards city-development. I just build lost of cities, and tried to develop them all. Until I discovered that my good cities were merely subsidizing my poorer cities.
And thereby actually holding my empire back as a whole.
Then I got into a phase were I would build just a handful of cities, each one highly specialized, a SSC, a city with Shake's for a naval/air base, etc. I took the principle of specialization to it's extreme, being amazed at the sheer power and might that a few well-developed cities hold.
Now, with years of experience, I just build a handful of cities period, and it doesn't really seem to matter much how I develop them. You're assured of an overwhelming victory anyway. (SP of course).

	09-03-2001 20:27									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

La Fayette, my apologies, I have, on another thread, just attributed the 'Starving Silicon City' thread to Blaupanzer - sorry.

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven