07-03-2003 01:03									#61
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DeepO Sure, keep those coming, I'm still chuckling DeepO

Unless you are tickling yourself, you have no reason to chuckle.

You did not address the question I raised.

You did proceed to show that you have no ability to argue against my points.

	07-03-2003 01:14									#62
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 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???

ROTFLMAO



Don;t worry, man, we ain't gonna have no worries in getting those strategic resources!

(Theseus goes off to count the number of desert, hill, mountain, and jungle tiles in the immediate area...)

	07-03-2003 01:16									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

FYI, those we're rhetorical questions (ones in which an answer is not expected or in fact needed). It alludes to the fact that we'll eventually need 'all' of those resources.

	07-03-2003 01:20									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I vote for Aeson as the new 'expansion and city placing' minister/consul!

	07-03-2003 01:20									#65
	Got spare money?

bf1, you may have missed my second-to-last post due to paging... please take a look, as it is a more direct arument, I think.

Re SP versus MP, I would not say that the discussion has really been in that context at all... if anything, it has been an effort to determine an optimum methodology for CP, considering terrain, neighbors, etc., for all of the early-, mid-, and lategame, REGARDLESS of whether you're facing off against human or AI civs... assuming, in fact, that you need to kick butt against the toughest opponents you ever saw.

	07-03-2003 01:21									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

bigfree1, by your reasoning, what we should really be doing is expanding out as and as loose as possible in order to get as much terrain inside our borders as possible. Only then will we be confident to get all the necessary resources. I'm not sure this the right way to think about this.

First, as Theseus points out, close city-spacing does not actually restrict your land area all that much. Since you're economy is so good, you'll end up producing more cities than other civs, and these will each gobble up some land. In SP, it is not difficult to out-expand (terrain-wise) the AI even when using 3-spacing.

Second, things will change a lot during the course of the game. It would be great to be guaranteed all the necessary resources right from the start, but the only way to (sort of) obtain this is to expand in an "umbrella"-type way. This sacrifices way too much economic power early on. For the next 80-100 turns, I would rather have 10 good, prodcutive cites instead of 6 (which would not be as good due to Corruption). Maybe at turn 150 we'll find that we missed out on a Coal, but we'll also find out we suck way before then (to put it bluntly).


Dominae

	07-03-2003 01:22									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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???

Luckily ( ) we are surrounded by terrain that likely holds those resources. Jungles, Desert, Hills, Mountains.

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

Claiming territory is an initial drawback to tight spacing. What has to be considered though is turn advantage. If we can found a city a couple turns earlier, get it's tiles improved a couple turns earlier... it's producing more and for more turns. That production in turn can be used to build an earlier Settler, Worker, ect. The turn advantage is in effect for most of the rest of the game for that city and anything that is produced by it. So a Settler a couple turns earlier, founding a city a couple turns earlier than it would by wider spacing now is a few turns ahead itself. The next iteration it's several turns earlier. On these settings, the iterations are probably going to be limited to 3 as far as claiming terrain peacefully. The thought is, that those 2 turns saved in our first cities, 4 turns in the second tier (most likely still in the same ring though), 6 turns in the third, allow us to get to a few city sites we wouldn't have been able to get to (or have to sacrifice too much to get to).

Unless we have a neighbor directly S of the Jungle, we are going to claim more terrain by initially having our cities tightly packed. Especially considering the terrain, where everything we can see worth using at this point is within 3-4 tiles of our starting location. Founding cities without access to at least 1 tile of 2+ food means it's going to be a lousy city for a long time.

If we do have a neighbor directly S of the Jungle, it is likely we claim the same amount of terrain either way, unless their terrain S is equally as bad as our's is N (otherwise they won't be settling the Jungle as soon as we are). To be honest, this is our best case scenario (especially if it's Firaxis ), as at least we have a likely target who will be in as poor a location as we are, helping us improve the Jungle until it's time to deal with them.

	07-03-2003 01:28									#68
	Put an end to popups!

bigfree1, you seem to be missing a few points here. One of the basic assumptions is that MP games do not stretch as long as SP games do, (well, to be precise: yes they take longer, but no, they don't get farther advanced in terms of tech).

So most discussions on CP come from SP, and not from MP with special needs, in that MPs are faster and don't get far enough to benefit from loser schemes. If you want to see games in which similar problems arise, look at games in which the AI is in the advantage. Aeson's SVC is still the single best AAR to learn about MP games...

Further, in MP territory comes from conquest when you need it, so it's better to have more troops, instead of more terrain to defend. Add to that that we have diverse terrain (even perfect terrain for rubber ), and most disadvantages have been contricted...

BTW, Don't get me wrong, in reading my response, it seems I was a bit too cocky, this was not my intention. I value all counter arguments, certainly when they are written clearly. But I genually was having a good time with your arguments, so thanks for the laugh!

DeepO

	07-03-2003 01:33									#69
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Couple more thoughts:

1. I disagree with DeepO... this is a very special type of MP game, and I bet we make it to Tanks.

2. bf1 makes an intersting point re comparing the CP methodologies that the different teams will use.

Here are some predictions:

CFC: 3-tile
Firaxis: 3 to 4-tile
Germans: Either 3-tile or ralphing (grrr)
French: 5-tile ( )

I'll take aggressively tight placement and ralphing, thank you very much. Again, we should run a bake-off once we've seen a bit more territory.

Also, our intelligence agents should be specifically tasked with determining the likely CP methodologies that will be used by the other teams, especially any neighbors.

	07-03-2003 01:36									#70
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dominae bigfree1, by your reasoning, what we should really be doing is expanding out as and as loose as possible in order to get as much terrain inside our borders as possible. Only then will we be confident to get all the necessary resources. I'm not sure this the right way to think about this. Dominae

I do not sugget that at all. I suggest that a 'middle of the road' policy will work best until we find out what is going on in the world. I posted this here:

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 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.

So why would you suggest that I would go for the 'loose as possible' strategy?


I've already stated that I think a CP strategy is a fine one. My only counter to that is that we are not playing against any AI opponents.

Where are the arguments that show CP works against human opponents? I've provided arguments to show that it wouldn't work as well against a human as it would an AI. I'm still waiting....

I get the feeling that people do not read other peoples posts in their entirety. I am already tired of this argument since it hasn't any logical direction.

	07-03-2003 01:43									#71
	Full PM-box? Change here!

To clarify a bit about turn advantage in our case...

Apolyton will be handling a lot of the Settler duties due to having the bonus food source and a Granary. At first this looks like it negates the iterative nature of the advantage in founding cities, but consider that Settlers in our case absolutely need Worker support to make city sites productive. No matter how they are spaced.

In founding cities earlier, roads to city sites are imperative. The Workers from cities other than Apolyton will be ahead of schedual, and so then will the Settlers from Apolyton in founding their cities and having useful terrain to work. Much the same as if the Settlers themselves were produced in the second tier and the Workers in the first.

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

It's really too soon to run any simulations that will show a valid comparison. We need to at least be able to see what our first ring of loosely spaced cities would look like terrain wise. We could do something on settings that are similar, but efficient loose city placement is so terrain dependant that any deviation will throw it off a lot.

	07-03-2003 01:49									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I take exception to that, bf1. I am definitely reading your posts in entirety, and responding to your arguments.

Unfortunately, there has not been enough experience with ralphing yet in MP games to show you proofs... we can only argue out the logic.

I will say that it is my sense that discussion on the 'poly Strat and PTW forums, as well as at CFC, prior to the recent discussions on ralphing, indicated that 3-tile spacing (adjusting for terrain) was the best CP methodology to date for both SP and MP.

Actually, this is important... do you more or less agree that that has been the community consensus until recently?

I'll assume you do, and move on.

If your read the "CP Redux" thread in Strat, which I think you did a few weeks ago, you'll see my misgivings about 3-tile CP.

I would argue that what we came up with is DRAMATICALLY superior to 3-tile spacing in the late ancient game and later, especially for commercial.

I will concede that it does slow down territorial expansion in the very early game, but probably only up to the time you have 5-6 towns / cities... but unless you are abutting neighbors that early, it shouldn't matter (and building a kick-ass Worker / Settler pump (which also benefits from tight spacing), which most people don;t know how to do, also goes a long way to making up for that early territorial penalty).

Again, I think it doesn't matter if we are talking about SP or MP... if anything, I want us to perform that much better in MP, and thus: ralphing is the way to go.

	07-03-2003 01:53									#73
	Increase the size of your Attachments

One more thing:

Maybe part of this is my fault for starting off with a cutesy thread name.

I am NOT advocating Borging.

I am supportive of 2/3/5-tile spacing, dependant on terrain, with towns / cities tasked to specific functions (e.g., Worker / Settler Factories, Unit Factories), and with certain towns selected for later sacrifice in order to allow other cities to grow very large and productive.

(That's my dictionary definition of ralphing, btw)

Last edited by Theseus on 07-03-2003 at 02:03

	07-03-2003 01:55									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I doubt oil will ever get a problem, yes. If we would get to tanks, we can only be in 2 positions: either vasals to someone else (which I doubt), or already superior to the majority of teams in this game. So either we don't have the territory and don't care if we get oil or not, or we have plenty of territory, partly because we had enough early production to conquer / defend it.

There has been a lot of argument against one counter argument: lesser territory per city means less resources later on. Even if this might not be resolved in your eyes, why don't you counter some of the other arguments?

E.g. if we want to get the most out of our commercial trait, we need to build the cities as close as possible, or every city that would get helped by commercial by having less corruption due to # of cities, is totally corrupt by distance corruption anyway?

I think you'll find it hard to counter that, but please proof me wrong. And if you don't, try to balance your (possible) disadvantage against this advantage, and see what's most important to you in this game.

DeepO

	07-03-2003 02:07									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Theseus I will concede that it does slow down territorial expansion in the very early game, but probably only up to the time you have 5-6 towns / cities... but unless you are abutting neighbors that early, it shouldn't matter (and building a kick-ass Worker / Settler pump (which also benefits from tight spacing), which most people don;t know how to do, also goes a long way to making up for that early territorial penalty).

That's the catch. Whether or not we can get more than 5-6 cities using this method depends on whether or not anyone is directly south of us. Best we can do at this point if make scenarios and apply/alter then as the situation presents myself. My general feeling is the closer nearby we have neighbors, the more we go towards a true Borg-style placement.

	07-03-2003 02:19									#76
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Theseus If your read the "CP Redux" thread in Strat, which I think you did a few weeks ago, you'll see my misgivings about 3-tile CP. I would argue that what we came up with is DRAMATICALLY superior to 3-tile spacing in the late ancient game and later, especially for commercial.

Theseus, I've seen no evidence on any Strat forum AAR that this is the case. It is only "dramatically" superior in theory at this point, and even then that is arguable. Until someone shows that ralphing is better than 3-spacing the way 3-spacing is better than "optimal" spacing, I believe any conclusions about ralphing are premature.

In any case, I thought the consensus in your thread was that the best way to appreach city placement was place cities according to what the land can support. Ralphing versus 3-spacing are just patterns that may or may not apply based on what the map generator provides.


Dominae

	07-03-2003 02:45									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DeepO There has been a lot of argument against one counter argument: lesser territory per city means less resources later on. Even if this might not be resolved in your eyes, why don't you counter some of the other arguments? E.g. if we want to get the most out of our commercial trait, we need to build the cities as close as possible, or every city that would get helped by commercial by having less corruption due to # of cities, is totally corrupt by distance corruption anyway? I think you'll find it hard to counter that, but please proof me wrong. And if you don't, try to balance your (possible) disadvantage against this advantage, and see what's most important to you in this game. DeepO

I don't offer a counter to the agrument you make (in bold) becuase it is a valid argument in it's own rights.

But what a CP plan does do is leave us open for missing out on resouces and luxeries. That is my main argument against a CP plan.

"Ralphing" may very well be a very good strategy against an AI and CP too for that matter. My whole argument against CP hinges on the fact that we may lose resources by not claiming enough land quickly enough. That is it, no real other argument against CP or "ralphing" than that. But I think that it is a good enough reason to consider increasing the amount of territory under our control.

One minor sub-argument I brought up is that the AI doesn't act like a human so any previous experiences of a "ralphing" plan or a CP plan just doesn't hold water in my opinion.


BTW, I'm glad this discussion is back on the right track. Also when I earlier said that it seems as if no one is reading my posts in their entirety, I didn't mean that everyone is guilty of that. I give much credit to some of the people from the Strat forum's and here in this one.

	07-03-2003 03:07									#78
	Remove this text

bf1, when we (or at least I) refer to "CP", I think it's the concept of any city placement methodology in general.

If I had to zero in, I'd say the arguments here have been among:

* loose CP (3-5 tile, depending on terrain)
* tight CP (mostly 3-tile, with some 2s and 4s for terrain)
* ralphing (2/3/5-tile spacing, with the provisos I listed earlier)

No one is really advocating true Borging (2-tile)... I don;t think.

The big outstanding arguments, I think:

1. Do tighter methodologies result in smaller territories?

I would argue no... more optimized USE of good tiles (not just having them in your territory), resulting from the sharing of those tiles by different towns / cities, gives such a production advantage that you are able to build sufficiently more Settlers et al that you end up with more territory, not less.

2. Does ralphing trump 3-tile?

Dominae has been a resolute critic of this. Where I think we most differ (I may be wrong) is in regard to sacrificial cities... I argue that 3-tile is inefficient for this concept. This is really only important, for the most part, if you are going to reach the middle and industrial ages... which I think will happen here in the ISDG. Also, ralphing is still a rather unproven theory, in either SP or MP.

I suggest we back off this discussion a little... I'd rather focus on this particular game, and compare concrete CP plans and comparative scenarios in order to maximize our chances given our challenged terrain.

	07-03-2003 03:16									#79
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Theseus 1. Do tighter methodologies result in smaller territories? I would argue no... more optimized USE of good tiles (not just having them in your territory), resulting from the sharing of those tiles by different towns / cities, gives such a production advantage that you are able to build sufficiently more Settlers et al that you end up with more territory, not less.

This puts the point very succintly. If you're not inclined to agree with this, you're not likely to ever become convinced that close spacing is a good thing. My suggestion is for all the critics to try it out (in SP or MP, makes no difference).


Dominae

	07-03-2003 03:19									#80
	Increase the size of your Attachments

bigfree1, you may have missed it, but I already replied to Togas re using tight spacing vs humans. I have been doing it for months in many games. In almost all those games I am the most powerful and populous civ late in the Ancient era. The reasons for this have been outlined above quite well.

The pity is that others are starting to catch on.

	07-03-2003 03:22									#81
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Theseus bf1, when we (or at least I) refer to "CP", I think it's the concept of any city placement methodology in general.

Sorry, I thought 'CP' was for Close Packed.

	07-03-2003 03:40									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

(pardon the wandering focus of this post)

As for Ralphing. Certainly there is a place for temp cities, but it's a case by case thing. Not all 'permanent' cities want to eventually build Hospitals, some will work perfectly well at size 12 and below. In such areas, 3 spacing works well, and no cities need to be disbanded.

Other times there are obvious late powerhouse locations, and placing a couple temp cities to use the 9 or so tiles that are reserved in the interim is a good idea.

Locking into a pattern or CP idiology of any sort isn't going to allow for the most efficiency. If we spot Cows and Wine Hills on a river S of the Jungle (if it ever ends! ) I'll be one of the first recommending we send a Settler there as soon as we can guarantee it's defense. Until we find such sites, there is no point in spacing cities loosely though. Even then we'd be packing a few temp cities around it until the Industrial age though. Then concepts from Ralphing can be applied.

When Theseus advocates Ralphing, that's the argument I read between the lines (there are a lot of those lines between here and the Strat forum). Not a pattern necessarily, but just applying 'temp' city logic in the most efficient manner possible.

When dealing with MP vs SP, the main difference IMO is that in MP you apply your production and commerce differently than in SP. The actual manner in which production and commerce is most efficiently gained (in peaceful times) remains the same.

	07-03-2003 04:34									#83
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Aeson When Theseus advocates Ralphing, that's the argument I read between the lines (there are a lot of those lines between here and the Strat forum). Not a pattern necessarily, but just applying 'temp' city logic in the most efficient manner possible.

You are correct, sir.

Figure out the great city sites, and work backward from there, all the way to 2-tile spacing and temp cities.

Maximize production and territory. Minimize corruption and waste. Kick some mofo ass...

These are a few of my favorite things.

	07-03-2003 08:48									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm curious, has anyone tried a 2/3/4/5 spread (adjusted for terrain) yet?

Either way, I'm convined.

E_T