 |
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Your site #3 looks better for this purpose (access to Bonus Grasslands, Silk Forest to chop, low Corruption). Even if it's to be a temporary city, there's no real harm in building a Barracks there, since it will be "temporary" for a long time (i.e. long enough for the Barracks to pay off).
|
Unless I'm looking at the map wrong, #3 would only have immediate access to 1 bonus grassland the one 9 of #1 but which would be in use by the capital. The only way #3 would net bonus grasslands would be with a temple but it'd much rather get a barracks than a temple early especially since #3 is a camp city. In fact, the priority in that city would of course be the barracks, if I had cranked some units from #2 already and were militaristic, I'd even build the barracks first.
On the other hand once #2 is built and then #3, the border would squeeze in and grab those two bonus grasslands in the middle (remember that even in 4-tile the bordres merge). Thus a combination of cities #1-2-3 would net me 7 bonus grasslands.
Now, I totally agree that in the long run it might not have been as efficient as getting the wheat, but frankly a strong ultra-ultra early start is very important in SP where on emperor and deity you simply cannot afford to have a neighbor too close. Now, also notice that #2 in fact does have a wheat tile in its radius if you build a temple or some other cultural improvement in it, thus #2 can serve as a settler pump too early on, especailyl if you are religious.
quote:
How would you place your cities if this were a SP game?
Dominae |
In a SP I might be less inclined to 3-tile my outer borders since I don't really fear a precise invasion (mind you I fear invasion but not in the way a MP opponent would do it which is pretty much the incentive to 3-tile in MP)
Thus, i'd probably build #7 at 9 of its location so it could be coastal, i'd do the same to #6, moving it 9 too. In this scenario moving #10 to 9 would also be usufull, it could net the extra wheat and leave crappy #4 as a military city (and drunken capital thanks to those wines  ).
Why I wouldn't move #10 originally? Because by moving it I'd upset the delicate balance of 3-tile outer spacing since I'd have to move #6. Now, you might say, moving #6 at 9 would still leave it at 3-tile to 11 BUT, there's a flaw in the defenses, as an attacker could move from the two forests downwards with their stack out of the reach of city-safe counterattack. This might be solved by turning #6 into a military camp too. If I were a commercial civ then low corruption might make it feasable and would agree to doing it. If not, I'd rather keep my military camps close.
BTW, I understand there's always an exception to every rule in the sense that this placement would not be ideal under all cirumstances, if you were military then you'd change this, if commercial... you see what I'm getting at. It's hard to truly find an ideal placement scheme until you are actully on that map and knowing what civ you are and on what difficulty level and who you find in your borders. Having said that, the placement I proposed was IMO the best "average" one which came to my head at the moment without taking those specifics into consideration.
What would be fun would be to select a civ and then ask people to choose their placement 
Last edited by Master Zen on 29-06-2003 at 01:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Out of 177 tiles covered by the central city and the secondary ring of eight cities, only four tiles cannot be utilized once the four camps are abandoned. At that point I am only utilizing 173 out of 177 tiles.
|
That's post-Sanitation, of course. Do you only disband your camps once you reach Sanitation? And do they get any improvements other than Barracks before they get disbanded? If you disband your camps before Sanitation, you suddenly have many tiles going unused, and if not you're going to run into problems with those camps unless you build improvements in them (or just take it for granted that you'll have enough Luxuries). The way I see camps work the best is if you disband them sometime in the early Medieval.
Also, let me point out that those 4 unused tiles are at the core of your empire, and that's an unecessary waste of low-Corruption real-estate.
In general, I'm not saying your camp strategy is hopelessly flawed. What I am saying is that restricting yourself to that pattern will not help you in many games where the "lay of the land" is not condusive to it. I see camps more as a opportunities rather than mainstays of my economic plan.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
On Emperor you can always reach military parity with almost any neighbor relatively early if only you expand fast enough. Archer rushes 20 turns into the game and 40 turns into the game are essentially equivalent if done properly.
On Deity you basically have no hope of rushing your average neighbor due to all the AI's bonus military units (not to mention the extra Settler). In my experience, successful early rushes by the human player on Deity are mostly flukes and do not represent typical games on that difficulty level. Therefore the only way to ensure the neighbors do not get too close is by expanding as quickly as possible.
|
You can also reach military parity by kicking your neighbor's ass early on. In my experience with Deity, it is not you who does the rushing, but the AI which frecuently sends a spearman and some warriors at you very quickly. It's especially nasty when the Greeks do it, as they love to send hoplites to pillage you're dreadfully important improved squares. Thus, on deity a quick early city producing units helps for defense as you can put some spearmen on those tiles to force the AI to attack you and lose when it does. This strategy is the only one i've found effective against a civ like Greece against who you have no chance of defeating Hoplites which enter your tiles. After a few turns they'll lose some units and you can sue for peace.
I do see that we have very distinct styles of playing our early game but frankly I think both our styles are effective, at least mine has worked very well for me so far. As you can also probably guess why I'm in GoW and not Lego... 
quote:
In both cases you'll notice that bonus Food is better than Shields, because growth and expansion is pivotal.
|
I still don't see why that extra food on a plain is just so overwhelmingly vital instead of a city with abundant bonus grasslands. If that food had been on a grassland perhaps, but on a plain it would only net you 3 food (I assume you are talking about the wheat near #10) If you are talking about the wheat near the capital, that's for the capital, which it would spare it with another city only on the last turn so as to not waste foods.
quote:
This exercise is currently being done in AU402, where players are encouraged to write a report of their first 40 turns (and the 40 turns after that). I'm hoping this sort of discussion would migrate toward that thread, since it's a real-game example. And let me assure you right now, it's much more of an "interesting" map in terms of city placement, if you know what I mean...
Dominae |
Hmm... I suddenly feel tempted to try it out, if only for the first 80 turns. Sadly my PC is in no shape to play an entire huge map game with the little time I have to play civ right now, but I guess I'll give the start a try
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-06-2003 23:46
|
|