23-02-2003 18:48									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I beleave that yours is ahead of mine by 1 turn because of the border expansion issue that BFM found out about. This delays that 1 warrior build by 1 turn (and everything else).

As for the Incense being connected as early, yes we could use the Lux slider to keep happy when we get to size 4, but if we can have the lux ready, then we don't need to use that. Save that little bit of trade for science or money to upgrade our Warriors.

E_T

	23-02-2003 21:49									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Re: connecting the Incense. Another reason why I'm not sure about this is that we want to have enough improvable tiles to support two cities once our second gets founded. As far as I can see, our capital and city 2 will have to work some unimproved tiles if we spend 5 or so turns hooking up the Luxury. I'm still waiting for some exploration to happen, but in my tests I've put our second city 233 (S-SE-SE) from our capital, which allows it to use the Game tile when the capital is not using it.


Dominae

	24-02-2003 01:25									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

As far as I can see, we will be using the Game tile exclusivly for Apolyton, at least for the forseeable future.

E_T

	24-02-2003 02:05									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Re: connecting the Incense. Another reason why I'm not sure about this is that we want to have enough improvable tiles to support two cities once our second gets founded. As far as I can see, our capital and city 2 will have to work some unimproved tiles if we spend 5 or so turns hooking up the Luxury. I'm still waiting for some exploration to happen, but in my tests I've put our second city 233 (S-SE-SE) from our capital, which allows it to use the Game tile when the capital is not using it. Dominae

You'd really want to build a second city that close to the Capitol? What's your reasoning, besides it being able to use the game tile, for it?

	24-02-2003 02:11									#35
	Suffering from ads?

It's very smart to build there, in that it allows Apolyton and City2 to share three good tiles.

But there is a larger discussion to be had...

I'll let Dominae run with it.

(snickers)

	24-02-2003 02:20									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Theseus, I hope, nay, expect you to help me out with the city placement paradigm we're going to run with. Once we see more of the map, we should be able to put a ralphing strategy into action, if it seems appropriate based on the terrain.

bigfree1, a cold hard fact about Civ3 (and Civ2, for that matter) is that workable-tile overlap between cities is always better than no overlap in the early-game. Put another way, to start out strong you need close city-spacing.
Let's call city 2 'bigfreeville'. With a Granary, Apolyton (the capital...Apolytonia?) grows every 4 turns, with 2 Food wasted (3+3+3=9, 10 Food needed to fill up the box). If those two Food are diverted to bigfreeville, well, bigfreeville is getting a big free injection of Food (pardon the pun, but it was too good to avoid!). Little things like this make for a very strong early-game.


Dominae

	24-02-2003 02:29									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Theseus It's very smart to build there, in that it allows Apolyton and City2 to share three good tiles. But there is a larger discussion to be had... I'll let Dominae run with it. (snickers)

While I can see that short term effects are non-existent, it's in the long haul that I express concern for the placement of a city this close to our Capitol. We do not even know what is available, resourcewise, around us. I firmly believe that there should be no overlap in cities this close. I believe that we should allow for maximum growth and use of bonus resource tiles for at least the first and second layers of cities that branch out from our Capitol.

In MP games the strategy to place cities close together works very well in the short term. For example most never plan to build an aqueduct to allow for more than a size 6 city and even more don't plan on the game lasting long enough to worry about future planning. Keeping your cities close together allows for a better defense since connecting roads can be built much more quickly and units can be transfered to 'trouble' spots in a hurry. If you start out with 5-6 palyers in an MP game, if after a couple of wars between the players, there are only 2-3 remaining players; they usually call it 'quits' because the fun just isn't there for them anymore. (oh how I dread people who quit when they lose their first city!) So the need for larger cities with the ability to produce items/units needed latter in the game, that have much higher shield costs, are never needed.

I think that this game will not be a quick one. We need to plan for the 'long haul' and not just for the short term

	24-02-2003 02:34									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

Dominae, in your example, doesn't bigfreeville also benefit if the capitol is a Settler Pump? When it's down at pop 2, there will be high production tiles otherwise going to waste.

	24-02-2003 02:40									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

bf1, please read this thread when you have a chance:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=77451

Clearly, we need to explore more before having any kind of serious discussion about city placement, but it will be useful for us all to have a common language for the discussion (e.g., #-tile spacing, ICS, OCP, 2/3/4/5 methodolgies, ralphing, etc.).

And, btw, I agree with you that this is a special MP game that will last longer than is typical... making the mid- to late-game capabilities of our cities very important.

	24-02-2003 02:43									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

bigfree1, I agree with your concern, to an extent.

First, tight city placement is strong until well into the late Medieval age. Only when you're nearing Steam Power and Sanitation would you want there to be no overlap, since cities cannot use all tiles availalbe to them until then (need Hospitals). Another economic concern is that if we build our cities in a loose pattern, we have to spend time building cultural improvements to access all tiles, which is not exactly our forte.

Second, there is a compromise solution. We could place our cities close together, planning to disband a select few of them down the road, leaving with the permanent cities in a loose pattern. A specific implementation of this was dubbed "ralphing" on the Strat forum (after Sir Ralph). I'm not huge on the idea, but if you really care for big cities later on, this might be your thing.


Dominae

	24-02-2003 02:49									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Theseus Dominae, in your example, doesn't bigfreeville also benefit if the capitol is a Settler Pump? When it's down at pop 2, there will be high production tiles otherwise going to waste.

I'm still not quite sure how big we'll want to keep the capital city. Large Settler pumps (size 6) are pretty strong, but not always workable. But, yes, the for the first few Settlers, when the capital is only size 2, surrounding cities can definitely benefit from "its" good, unused tiles.


Dominae

	24-02-2003 02:51									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

In my opinion, we should look into Ralphing. We might have to build our FP a little bit aways, and who knows if OCN corruption might kill us. Commercial will help, though.

	24-02-2003 04:10									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Theseus bf1, please read this thread when you have a chance: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=77451 Clearly, we need to explore more before having any kind of serious discussion about city placement, but it will be useful for us all to have a common language for the discussion (e.g., #-tile spacing, ICS, OCP, 2/3/4/5 methodolgies, ralphing, etc.). And, btw, I agree with you that this is a special MP game that will last longer than is typical... making the mid- to late-game capabilities of our cities very important.

Thanks for the link, very good info there.

I'm not sold on 'Ralphing' though. There are just way too many variables. If you had a continent, all to your self, and your start point was in the middle, and it didn't have any significant mountains, and (bonus, luxury, and resource) tiles were all evenly distributed; then 'Ralphing' would surely get my vote, at least from the evidence supplied. (I cannot test this now)

"Location, Location, Location." The lay of the land should dictate to us (as much as city spacing) as to where we should place our cities, to a lesser extent (only slightly) the proximity of neighbors also should lend some weight to the decision.

A proper test would be to use the differing strategies, all on the same map, played by different people. Then use a different map (more water, less mountains, ect...) That is; each person should play different games up to the number of strategies to be compared multiplied by the different maps.

I would be willing to take part in the 'study' if someone wants to set one up. It might take a week or two, but it would give us much more information as to the plausability of each strategy as compared to the available terrain.

	24-02-2003 04:39									#44
	Get a bigger avatar today!

bf1, you are, of course, correct... terrain makes all the difference.

Over the last week I've come to think of ralphing as less a pattern to adhere to than as a general philosophy.

Going way back to some of the earliest city placement discussions, my stance was that I wanted to always settle my best sites first, and would even leave holes to fill in later, while I went off on some early warmongering.

Then, over time, a bunch of us Strat forum guys started mostly doing 3-tile spacing (with Arrian as a notable exception), especially on Emperor / Deity. It's very very powerful.

But it always bugged me, since yes, I've gotten to enjoy the later game too, and I want GREAT cities then.

So now, I look at a map, and sorta say to myself:

1. Where are the great city sites? Eventually, I'm going to want those at 5-tile spacing (maybe some 4's, if there are some great resource tiles, but not enough food to otherwise support a full-size city).

2. Where's the crap? (tundra, desert, mountains, etc.) Those will be 2/3-tile spacing, and, depending on a lot of other factors, may be built later than in a simple, circular expansion.

3. What's left? Those will be 2/3-tile spacing, and may or may not be slated for removal. If they are, they obviosuly get nothing but one of or some combination of granary, barracks, and temple.

But again, all of this starts with terrain and neighbors. (btw, I'm a real estate guy, so "Location, Location, Location" is certainly my mantra.)

I think of it as the "Power of ICS" plus the "Power of Big Developed Cities, Low OCN Corruption, and Two-Turn Tanks."

Oh yeah, two-turn Tanks... ... and a lot of'em.

I love your suggestion about doing a REX study. I will participate too, and will try to communicate on our map exactly the thought processes and city placement planning / timing that I go through.

	24-02-2003 04:44									#45
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Theseus I think of it as the "Power of ICS" plus the "Power of Big Developed Cities, Low OCN Corruption, and Two-Turn Tanks." Oh yeah, two-turn Tanks... ... and a lot of'em. I love your suggestion about doing a REX study. I will participate too, and will try to communicate on our map exactly the thought processes and city placement planning / timing that I go through.

Cool, I think you and Trip will do a fine job.

	24-02-2003 05:03									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

Uh, and Dominae as MoI.

Actually, this is probably going to be a pretty heated issue... I expect that many others will join in on the discussion (btw, it should probably get its own thread), and, to use Vondrack's words, the final decisions by the Consuls will be based on the most rational and compelling arguments.

Again, great idea about doing a study. We should get Aeson and Nathan (nbarclay) in on it too... they are both very (read: insanely) good at stuff like this. I'm sure a number of other team members would be very good too, but we just don;t all know each other's capabilities yet.

	24-02-2003 10:48									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

My experience with Ralphing in a recent progressive game over there at the Spanish forum has given me pretty good results. I would be glad to participate in any further studying on city placement.

However, one question. I think we should consider learning more about the map before we start the "trials". Perhaps in a couple of turns we can work on a more accurate map in which, say, the area equivalent to the first "ring" of non-camp cities has been revealed.

In the meantime, if it gets its own thread, we should post our experiences with maps and all.