 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
For those of us who are somewhat unfamiliar with the Borg principles, could you post a URL or two, or explain why we should use this tactic?
|
Here's my view, which I must point out is incomplete and far from being authoritative.
1. Placing cities close together allows for maximum use of available land. If we space the cities out, we'll probably need to build Culture improvements to access some of the tiles. That's wasteful, because we want to access the good tiles sooner rather than later.
2. An extension of point 1 is that we want to make best use of improved tiles (tiles that have been worked by a Worker). By switching around Laborers among improved tiles as, we have more control over our city projects. For instance, if Apolyton is at 27 Shields and is producing a Settler, it will not need a 5 Shield per turn output. Thus one of its Laborers can be taken off a 2-Shield tile, which can then be used by a Laborer in another city. Without close spacing, this would not be possible, and we would be wasting Shields. This point is crucial in the use of our Game tile, which will waste 2 Food every 4 turns unless some other city can make use of it.
3. Close spacing is good for defense. Having cities 3 tiles apart means that a defender can get from one city to another in one turn on along a Road network. Hopefully we will not have to be on the defensive, but if we will close spacing is crucial (I speak from experience in a PBEM game I'm playing now).
4. With close city-spacing (not "Borg", but "3-spacing"), we will be making use of all the tiles within our borders when our cities finally max out in population. If we spread our cities out further, some tiles will not be used until we get Sanitation. Of course, those Desert tiles are not all that attractive, but once we get the Jungle cleared we will want to be using all the Grassland underneath. 3-spacing generally allows all cities to grow to size 12 but no more. That's all we're going to need for a majority of the game (before the Industrial age).
5. Since we're Commercial, the effects of close spacing on Corruption will be even less pronounced. We've picked the trait that makes close spacing work the best. So we might as well use it.
6. Having city sites closer together reduces the transit time for Settlers. You may argue that this is not that big of a deal (what's one more turn to get a city founded?), but it all adds up. The faster we get our cities founded, the better. They're also easier to connect with Roads if they're closer together (that is, they will be connected sooner), which is also a plus in terms of reducing Corruption.
7. Finally, although our cities appear to be very close together, notice that many of them will be along the coast. These coastal cities have access to some very good tiles, Coast, once Harbors get set up. There will not be as much competition for tiles as it would seem we only looking at the available land mass, since (once we get Harbors), the good tiles extend out into the sea.
I hope this gives you a general idea of why close spacing is good. I think we can bet other teams will be using it too, since experience has shown that it makes for a very strong early-game. At this point we need all the early-game advantages we can get.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
The main purpose for 5 is saving Worker turns, which I think comes out to 14 to move-> chop-> road-> irrigate that tile in bringing Irrigation up to the Plains. That project will make a huge difference to our overall number of valuable terrain tiles in the shortest order. 14 Worker turns is a lot of potential improvements that would better serve us.
|
Good thinking Aeson! I had not thought about getting fresh water up to the Plains tiles. For this reason, we may want to Settle there eventually, but I imagine it is not a priority. Fifth or sixth sounds about right.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
With a setup like this, we'll probably end up driving the consuls mad with 'move this laborer here, that one there' type moves being made almost every turn. |
This is PBEM. I'm sure the Consuls can spare a few extra mintues every few days to complete the necessary Worker and Laborer micromanagement. If they're not up to it, we'll call for a vote of no-confidence!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
For those of us who are somewhat unfamiliar with the Borg principles, could you post a URL or two, or explain why we should use this tactic? |
I'll try to keep it as brief as possible. (I see Dominae has posted much of this while I was typing it all up... what I get for being so unfocused and slow. I can't bear to just discard it all, so pardon the repetition)
The main benefits of building closely are: (as applies to our position)
1a. The city tile always gives 2 food and doesn't require a laborer to work it. This has a twofold effect:
- Building a city on any tile that gives less food or shields is like upgrading the terrain.
- 2 cities will cause population to grow twice as fast as 1 city, given the basic 2 food per turn excess.
1b. The city tile always gives 1 shield, and doesn't require a laborer to work it.
- Building a city on any terrain that gives no shields is equivalent to mining it. (up until Railroads)
- 2 cities will have twice the number of 'laborerless' shields as a city size 6 or under. At size 7 (Industrious?)the two cases are equal. I think non-Industrious civs get the extra shield at size 13.
2. Building a city automatically clears Jungle. If we later disband the city, the Grassland underneath is exposed and comes with a road already in place. The equivalent of saving 11 Worker turns.
3. Building a Settler (20 or 40 food, 30 shields) to go build a city to just pump out Workers in the Jungle, needs to build up to 4 of them to pay off. That's normally 40 turns as we won't be founding cities without at least access to 1 tile of 2+ food. In our case, the Settlers from Apolyton are only 20 food, so 2.5 Workers is basically the break even point.
4. Happiness is easier to control in smaller cities. A luxury is worth more happy faces the more cities that are connected to it.
5. Aquaducts and/or Hospitals aren't needed, and so those shields can be used for more important things.
6. All useful terrain tiles can be used before Aquaducts and/or Hospitals, making the same terrain more productive before those improvements could be built.
7. Distance corruption isn't affected by number of cities or the Commercial trait, tight spacing diminishes it's effect.
8. A size 1 city that is totally corrupt 'produces' just the same as a size 6 city that is totally corrupt. That's disregarding specialists here as the presence of a bonus food tile affects both cases equally.
9. In a government with free unit support, the more cities the merrier.
10. Defenses can be more fluid if cities are within the range of defenders of another city (normally 3 tiles).
Some of the negatives: (aestetics aside)
1. At size 7 and 13, there are commerce and production bonuses for city squares.
2. Number of cities corruption will increase corruption in outlying cities. Tight spacing increases it's effect. Taken together with distance corruption it's a balancing act between the two effects.
3. The effect of improvements are diminished as they work on fewer population points each.
4. Defensively there is a danger of a domino effect when dealing with fast moving troops.
5. Disbanding (while preserving it's pop) isn't free, the transfer of pop costs 10 shields.
---------------------------
Most of these points have the tendancy to favor a tight spacing early on, milder spacing in the Middle Ages, and wide spacing in the Industrial onward. That's why building 'inbetween' cities early on, and disbanding them later is so powerful. Efficiency now... and later, with minimal opportunity costs.
These cities do pay for themselves rather quickly. If you keep one around for 30 or so turns the effect it has had will be positive. This is especially true if the removal of these cities is timed with the building of growth enabling improvements in other cities. The permanent cities wouldn't have been able to grow anyways, and now there will be a pop influx from the cities being filtered out that wouldn't be there otherwise.
Last edited by Aeson on 06-03-2003 at 10:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Doh, I forgot to mention Aeson's points 1a, 1b and 2 in my own post, which are the standard arguments for ICS from Civ2. Compelling reasons, given our poor terrain (turn that Desert into a mined+roaded Grassland!).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by E_T
but please don't forget that this IS a democracy and you will have to convince the populus with your placement reasons and why one arrangement will actually be better than the other.
|
That's what we're trying to do. Are you not convinced?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
What I need to understand is how are we going to win with this build scheme. It sounds like an ideal way to maximise production in a small, compact empire, but it seems to ignore the fact that you need to control territory in this game to increase your chances of getting necessary resources, to limit your neighbor's expansion options, and to control vital strategic terrain and luxuries.
Under this philosophy we make no attempt to control territory and we assume that our neighbor's large un-optimized city placement will be weaker than our compact, efficient design. We will have to exploit that weakness early on before they can fill up their territory and essentially put more tiles to use than us.
Our method to beat such a neighbor will be to use brute force early on to savage his empire ... but if our neighbor has resources that we don't ... and if he has control over chokepoints, a decent defensive road network, and un-AI-like combat wisdom ... are we really going to beat him with a borg philosophy?
Can someone who's tested this philosophy vs humans please outline how it applies to multiplayer games, and how successful it is vs a non-compact style? I can understand the defensive benefits of this style, as I use tight city spacing myself in some games so that my cities can protect each other, but I am having trouble seeing how this style, in the big picture, can win a game as this game often comes down to control of resources, luxuries, and territory ... at least in my mind.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Togas, you seem to be under the impression that close city-spacing is only good for early military momentum. This is not true. Close city-spacing is good for economy in general (which may or may not be applied to military pursuits). With a strong economy, you can do anything you want with looser spacing, but better. It is certainly possible that we lose a Luxury or two due to decreased land area, but our economy will stronger overall compared to our neighbor with the wider empire. But this is only a possibility. Most likely we will access the same Luxuries (and Strategic resources) that we would under looser spacing. A strong economy early is our most important goal right now.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
but I am having trouble seeing how this style, in the big picture, can win a game as this game often comes down to control of resources, luxuries, and territory ... at least in my mind.
|
It is not really necessary to test this out against humans. When playing SP, the AI always favors a looser spacing than 3-tile. Yet you will win more games if you space your cities closer than the AI does, even if a particular enemy civ ends up having much more land area than you do.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I think there are ways to go about winning a game that include both loose and tight spacing.
It depends on many things:
1. What is available to you, land, luxeries, resources and bonus tiles.
2. How many neighbors you have.
3. How fast they expand.
4. How combative they are.
5. What resources they have (land, luxeries, resources, bonus tiles)
There are many things to consider when trying to adopt either strategy. I think that eityher stategy can work as long as you take into consideration all of these factors and build units/improvements accordingly.
Do I think one is better than the other? Yes and no. It depends on what your neighbors are doing.
If they are overexpanding and getting a few cities close to us that are not capable of producing units for protection, then our tightly spaced Civ could easily send in trops to capture or raze the city.
If they build tightly and we do too; then it is a wash.
If they build neither tight nor loose and we build tight; we could loose severaly luxeries and resources for the early game and especially in the mid-late game.
I think we should take a 'middle of the road' policy until we can get some reconaisance on what the others are doing and what we have as far as what #1 above asks.
I know that some people say that 'being in the middle of the road may get you ran over', but it seems to work for most of the politicians out there. At least until we caqn get a feel for what we have available to us and what our neighbors are doing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Close city-spacing makes the best use of available tiles. That is a good thing, no matter how you plan to win or what your neighbors are doing. I have yet to hear an argument against this.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
It is not really necessary to test this out against humans. When playing SP, the AI always favors a looser spacing than 3-tile. Yet you will win more games if you space your cities closer than the AI does, even if a particular enemy civ ends up having much more land area than you do.
Dominae |
True, we know what the AI does and how to beat it.
But, you know that even against the AI the human often has to make strategic attacks against the AI in order to secure certain resources if the human's Civ doesn't have it. The AI doesn't place anywhere near the value a human does on these certain types of battles. A human knows that it means life or death to get a certain resource, while an AI opponent doesn't put as much worth into it. So playing against the AI one is likely to aquire that resource. Against a human opponent you would have to nearly anihilate him in order to ahieve this; he will protect that resource with all his might.
Do not count on being able to aquire a resource latter in the game, you'd better make sure to include as much territory as is safely possible at the earliest convienience without sacraficing defensibility of the expansion. This will increase the chances of there being a resource we will need of being within our borders and not just outside of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I'm mainly concerned about Iron at this point, and we'll surely find a deposit or two in the wonderfully bumpy Hills and Mountains up North.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
I agree with all points Aeson and Dominae made before, but let me stress one point I think is most important: tight spacing is best because it limits corruption, and this is only reinforced because we're commercial.
As said, the commercial trait has only an effect on distance corruption, not on number of cities. If you would build cities loosely, thinking we'll get to hospitals soon, you need to build your 'extra' cities so far apart that commercial has no effect on them, as distance corruption makes them a total waste. If you do it like that, you'd better pick another trait that is more useful to you...
Building cities far apart can have only one real advantage in a PBEM where you expect the game to be over before hospitals come available, and that is extra territory. But why would you need more territory soon? Only for extra resources. This, IMHO, is not enough of a reason to not build tightly, certainly not when you can reasonably expect to have most resources in your tighter build too. Look through all the advantages listed, and decide for yourself... either you want a large, corrupt empire where over half of the tiles in that territory are wasted, or you go for tighter territory where not wasting tiles nor shields makes it possible to outgrow and outproduce others.
As to my questions on 6 tiles, and disbanding: You both know I like at least one productive, larger city, surrounded with huge amounts of smaller cities. We've got a river, so it would be possible to concentrate a lot of population in a city near it (after clearing the jungle, of course) early on, in the end this could be more flexible than only having small cities. I assumed #6 would be one of the cities that is most temporary, but it would also be one of the best places we've got for such a larger city...
And 6 tiles for each city: of course this has to be seen dynamically (the consuls are going to love all this MM), but on first look, at least a few of the proposed cities don't have enough food tiles. e.g. 3 can only use 3 grass at max, the rest of its growth needs to come from the sea. I agree that by keeping cities small, you don't need 6 tiles each, but at least you need to make sure that once we need production over settlers, most of the cities have decent tiles to work, and can grow enough too. I certainly don't oppose disbanding cities once we need the extra tiles, but if we could avoid disbanding cities just to settle them again 1 tile farther away, I'd like it best 
3 more comments: sure this is a democracy, and everyone should be convinced this is the right way to do it, but a democracy only works best if people listen to what others have to say, and are willing to take advice from people more experienced in certain things. And CP has been discussed to death in the strat forum, where most people reached the same conclusions. Also, don't forget that MP has special needs, and the more aestathically pleasing loose build is mostly tested in long SP games.
Further, I agree with nye: all this is only temporary, in that once the coast has been revealed, there might be changes to get the most out of fish or whales. But the discussion in itself on what we now know can be very useful to get people used to the idea... Borg, or at best 3-tile spacing is the way to go.
Last comment: Togas, indeed, this makes us "fly under the radar" on score, but any team that uses this tactic knows the score is only a moderate indicator of how an empire is doing. It is far too biased to territory, when population and number of cities is far more important in the early game. And this is certainly true when not scoring, but building makes more cities less corrupt.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm mainly concerned about Iron at this point, and we'll surely find a deposit or two in the wonderfully bumpy Hills and Mountains up North.
Dominae |
True, it's iron now.
But how long until we need saltpeter? How long till we need coal? How long till we need rubber? How long till we need oil???
We will need these things in time. I'm saying that since this is indisputable; we need to maximise than chances that they will indeed be found within our borders since obtaining them from outside will be quite an arduious task any a later date since we are not dealing with any AI Civ's here.
You asked for an argument against what you were proposing and I've provided one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
I think there's an assumption or two here that are forming distracting (and wrong) arguments about this type of CP methodology.
1. Tight city spacing (e.g., ralphing) results in less territory than 3-, 4-, or 5-tile spacing schemes.
Nope, I don;t think so. I made the point in the "CP Redux" thread in Strategy that it in fact results in faster territory expansion than 3-tile spacing. There is no question in my mind that the same applies when compared to even looser schemes, due to the production advantage (with the acception of being on great land... which certainly does not apply to us in this game). In other words, by virtue of pumping out Settlers at the maximum rate, due to optimized use of good tiles, you quickly catch up with and exceed other schemes in terms of territorial expansion.
2. 3-tile spacing is a good middle-of-the-road solution.
That was exactly why I started the "CP Redux" thread. 3-tile is significantly weaker than ralphing later in the game, due to the absence of sacrificial towns.
__________________________
And then, of course, there is the question of terrain... BAD TERRAIN REQUIRES 2-TILE SPACING. Say that again.
One of the reasons I keep pointing to Aeson as doing ralphing "naturally" is that he started playing reaaaally bad starts earlier than most, and just figured out intuitively taht 2-tile spacing is appropriate in certain circumstances... and then made the leap to sacrificial cities (also at 2-tile spacing).
In the first major discussion about this in this forum, we talked about playing out comparative games... can someone set this up?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 09:19
|