The MCS strategy

[Diadem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
* Fewer cities also means fewer aggregate tiles worked. Six cities * 21 tiles = 126 tiles AT MOST. The greater bulk of the game, of course, you will be working far less than half of this total. A civ with a greater number of cities will invariably work more tiles, because smaller cities grow faster than bigger cities, and he'll easily surpass you in total outputs. Granted, they'll be more highly dispersed, but more is still more.

Yes, but the tiles that you are working will be worked more effectively. You'll have less expenses, and you'll generally have good terrain under your cities. And more buildings such as libraries and markets.

Consider an unimproved grassland tile. What is its productivity? 2 food, you'd say. But that is wrong. It takes 2 food to work it. So it's net productivity is zero. It's actually -1 if you are having health problems in the city. Basicly unimproved tiles are useless.

And the net productivity of a improved tile is (early on) usually only 1 or 2. So that's what every population point adds to your total productivity.

Of course, more is still more, but the problem is that more cities doesn't mean too much more production. But it does mean a huge investment. And then you have to add upkeep costs into the equation.

When you expand less, you have more production to spend on other things, such as wonders and buildings. You'll also have more beakers. In the long run, your expansion will start to pay off, but by this time the extra beakers and wonders you can build if you don't expand also pay off.

It's hard to see immidiately which pays off more. It depends on circumstances. But I've found that conservative expansion is often the best strategy.

* Almost as bad as losing a city is pillaging. A small empire cannot afford to have even ONE tile pillaged. You're already not working very many tiles, and if so much as a single enemy troop gets through to pillage you, it HURTS. Much more than it would for the guy with 20-odd cities, who can take it (or even the loss of a city) on the nose without even blinking.

Another good point. Pillage zones help a lot here. And not neglecting defence and handling diplomacy well also helps But in general having less cities always makes you more vulnerable. One of the disadvantages of MCS. I can only respond by saying that I think that in most situation the advantages outweigh these disadvantages.

* It's inaccurate to say that an early worker or settler stalls growth. Speficically, it stalls vertical growth while fostering horizontal growth (with a net effect at near-zero). Sometimes, and for some specific strategies, you NEED vertical growth (for snagging wonders, for example), but horizontal growth is powerful in its own right. Granted, it might not be everybody's cup of tea (because it does involve micromanagement), but that takes nothing away from its power.

True. But it takes a long time before your horizontal expansion starts paying divident.

Also note that we're still gonna expand in an MCS strategy. Just a bit later. But this also means that it takes fewer turns to build a settler, that you'll have workers ready to improve the land around your new city, and that you can probably use your capital to build some defensive units for your new city. All in all, your new city starts later, but it'll be productive sooner. Still not as soon as quick expansion would have made it productive, but your improved growth in your capital makes up for this. Same story for your 3rd and 4th city basicly.

* It's highly start dependent. Average (or worse) start, and if this is your usual method of playing, you'll be sorely upset that you're not getting anywhere, and it might prompt you to just start over, when all it really would have taken was a focus on horizontal growth to get you over the hump.

A good point. If you don't have terrain capable of sustaining a few high-powered specialized cities, than ICS might not be the best choice. But that's a rare situation I think. Usually your capital has very good terrain, and there's usually decent enough terrain close by.

* Some civs, and some starts cry out for a vertical start. Others do not. Play the "wrong" civ and the wrong traits or start this way, and you won't have a good time. The same is true on the flip side. For example, the creative trait CRIES OUT for horizontal growth, while Philosophical does the same for vertical. Both are right, in their appropriate context.

Yes, selecting the right traits for your strategy is important. That's obvious

Not saying there's anything at all wrong with playing the game this way. It can obviously be very powerful. I've tried it myself to good effect. Just saying that if you are gonna experiment, you should be prepared for the downsides not mentioned in detail in the original post, and there are some.

Agreed. But like I said before, my post wasn't too detailed. I don't think it's useful to give hundreds of tiny details, when they all depend on the exact conditions of a specific game. Generic advice has to be generic.

Experimenting with strategies is useless when you have no idea what you are doing. You should never copy anything blindly.

Oh, and Diadem...Great post!

Thanks

[Aginor]

Re: Re: In Defense of Empire

Originally posted by Diadem
With 5 hammers a turn it takes a loooong time to just win back the cost of your city, and meanwhile you'll be falling behind on money and tech. And while it's building forges and granaries and other more or less essentional city upgrades, it's not doing anything useful either. An investment in futher production? Yes, sure, but meanwhile you're falling behind in tech...

I suspect that I did not clearly communicate the means of creating the early empire. Chop-REX Settling is fine for the first couple of cities founded...but beyond your civ's third city founded (occasionally the fourth in the right circumstances) it's a mistake. The reason to swiftly found additional early cities is to capture key strategic resources (Horses/Copper/river) and expand in the direction of your first victim in order to most efficiently convert his productive capacity into your own. Beyond that, against the AI the method of gaining additional cities is stealing them - from enemy civs and the barbs. It's a lot more efficient than Settlers since it doesn't cripple internal growth, it leaves room to grow, and the only buildings you need in the early stages are a few Barracks, a Granary (maybe) in pop-rushing cities and a Library in the city/cities where science is churned out. Else, it's all about the unit spam and any Wonder you can get away with (which is frequently the Oracle and *maybe* Stonehenge with Industrious or a forest-heavy city). To me, the big price of early empire is the Pyramids. Lacking Representation is a steep price to pay....but primarily what it means is leaning towards a non-GP-oriented game.

Yes, resources are important. They can be a valid reason to build new cities. But if you place your cities strategicly you can already get a lot of resources in your cultural bounderies even with only a few cities. Of course you're making sure that each of your cities has at least 3 border expansions

IMO, it's a terrible waste of net hammers and beakers over the course of a game to have unworked resources in one's cultural boundaries. It happens (I don't 3-space ICS within my borders until fairly late, and I still leave comparatively unproductive spots open even then), but my city placement makes every effort to avoid that eventuality.

He who has the most net gold, hammers and beakers wins. That's an important disticntion. If I make 1000 commerce / science and only have to use 50 of those for upkeep, I'm better of than someone who makes 1200 but has to use 300 for upkeep.

Absolutely true in the earlier stages - perfectionism has its privileges, and holding the six best city sites on a continent will likely result in the outcome described. However, later on when the better upgrades come online (Bank, +1 food/farm, Rails), the sprawling empire becomes considerably more efficient, and doesn't have to spend time in the later stages bringing the productive capacity, new cities, and key city builds online.

Yes, but you need a lot more hammers as well. First to get all those cities, then to improve and defend all those cities. Then to make all those cities productive. In the end a large empire has more hammers, I give you that, but it will take you a long time to get there, and in the meantime I will have more hammers. And more beakers too.

You'd be surprised how few Workers I get away with over the course of a game in a 12-15 city early empire designed to become a 35-45 city empire by the time all is said and done. I don't defend the core (or even upgrade the units) much at all due to border insulation, and my early army becomes a pre-produced garrison force for the fringes. As for science/costs, the keys are rivers (particularly the heavy floodplains variety spammed with cottages) and the right civ traits (Organized or Financial, either/or). Cottages are the emperor's best friend - a gift that just keeps on giving and giving and giving.

There's nothing that stops you from destroying rivals without taking all their cities. Genocide is a lot of fun. When I eliminate someone, I usually take over his capital, and sometimes a few other key cities. But most get razed.

Such a beautiful time advantage from city theft, though! All those lovely improved tiles all around the city you steal...hardly need but one Worker to re-order the idiocy of the AI. As for genocide - I'm actually not a big fan of it. I prefer to use the enemy AIs as a method of preventing alien AIs from other continents from establishing beachheads. In fact, I'd say that in the early going I take less than 50% of the capitals from the AI - if it's tucked away in a corner or if my assault runs out of steam, I leave it. The idea is to carve out a nice niche in Ancient/Classical which is mine by way of sealed cultural borders to expand into, then go to ground and go full builder to expiate the sins of early empire. So while I consistently dig a tech hole early around the era of Mathematics, I dig my way out by way of Liberalism and the education techs, hit Gunpowder first and unleash a quick Cavalry rush backed up with drafted garrisons. The draft, by the way, being where the productive power of a large empire truly asserts itself.

You don't need an early tech lead...you can push the AI around through the stack of doom early, and if you properly terrorize the AI early you can cow the civs on your continent to give you the time to get the tech lead by the time you actually need it.

In short, the use of the AIs development against the AI requires the empire model, but IMO that model sets the player up in the best position to exploit the one time when offense truly dominates defense.

*grins* Love the discussion - particularly the fact that it pushes all participants to crystallize their thinking in order to communicate it! When I get back home to my comp, I will certainly test out your methods to contrast, as your concepts are certainly thought-provoking (and in sharp contrast to these currently more conventional methods). And of course, the more information that is shared, the better everyone's methods become as additional data becomes available regarding all strategies.

[Velociryx]

True. But it takes a long time before your horizontal expansion starts paying divident.


Yep, and this is precisely why I'm a strong advocate for early expansion, as fast as it can be afforded. There are only 400-odd turns in the game, and a new city won't get up and running sufficiently to be a productive member of the team for quite some number of turns. Even your capitol, founded on turn one, only has 400-odd turns of life in him, and that number is much lower as the game progreses. Given that ultimately, we're all under the gun timewise, and given the fact that a new city needs time to gain productivity, I can't wait. I can't afford to wait. I gotta expand RIGHT NOW. Quicker than now if I can afford it. Every turn counts when the clock is ticking.

Actually, we're looking at the same phenomenon from two slightly different perspectives, because I too, enjoy long periods of vertical growth. I time mine around the maintenance cap, rather than around the health and happy cap, but it is the same phenominon at work.

I expand until I hit the maint. cap and it starts costing me money to continue doing so. You don't expand until you hit the happy cap. Two different measures for the same resource (population growth). I like that. The fact that Civ is robust enough to allow for two entirely different measures to be used.

-=Vel=-

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yep, and this is precisely why I'm a strong advocate for early expansion, as fast as it can be afforded.

Early expansion has its downsides. Let's look at a rough example:

Strategy 1
Build setler (~20 turns)
Build warrior (~ 8 turns)
capital reaches size 2
Build settler (~15 turns)
capital is still size 2

After ~43 turns, I will have 2 cities, size 2 and 1. I will have 1 warrior in my capital (or 2 if I start with a free warrior and fortify it, or I can fortify the free warrior in my second city to give it some protection).

Strategy 2
Build warrior (~ 8 turns)
Build second warrior (~ 8 turns)
Capital will be 2 or maybe 3 pop.
Build settler (~ 15 turns)
Build warrior (~ 5 turns)
capital is now pop 4 probably.

After ~ 36 turns, my second city came later but I will have a bigger capital (pop 3-4) and a bigger military.

Obviously, these numbers are not exact. But the point is this: vertical growth will give the player advantages in pop and military whereas horizontal growth will give the player an advantage in territory and potential for faster growth.

I contend that the advantages of vertical growth can overcome the advantages of horizontal growth. In other words, if I adopt vertical growth, I can overcome the player who focused on horizontal growth.

[Velociryx]

I'm not as convinced. Having tested it both ways on a variety of settings and maps, the only thing vertical growth gave me was more wonders (more concentrated production). In *every other category*, total outputs, tiles worked, population, and military, horizontal growth stole the show.

Of course, if it's the RIGHT wonder(s), you can turn that into an advantage, but if you want more of everything, then it starts with more cities. Got to. Cities drive the game.

-=Vel=-

[Krill]

I just want to point out that in MP, most games have something like 2 city elimination, and this, to an extent, slows horizontal expansion.

Don't overexpand. Don't expand at all if you can't defend your land, because someone will waltz in and take your new city, saving them the cost of a settler, or pillage the tiles and make themselves some gold. So in MP, I would argue that vertical growth is just as important, if not moreso, in the beginning. And those shields you spent on a settler can mean alot more military (you will be going worker before settler in MP btw, to hook up those precious metals and horses...and improving the land as well, thus helping vertical growth.)

[Cort Haus]

Good thread, Diadem, and good discussion everyone.

The only point I'll make for now is on non-worked resources. I can't bare leaving resources unworked, and if I do it's reluctantly, probably because a city had to be on a river or coast, or to include a more productive resource instead.

MCS presumably uses wide city placement to grab as much terrain as possible, and one advantage of this is the scope for MRC (Multi Role Cities). It's nice to be able to switch between hammers for a wonder, sea tiles for a research-push, or food tiles for specialists. Wide spacing might not use all the tiles all the time, but it does allow strong cities to be flexible.

(or was it Multi-Function City, or Multi Purpose City?)

[fed1943]

Great thread.I read,several times and careful,mostly the posts of Velociryx and Diadem.Please,allow me to tell you how I played in Noble,Creative,Expansive,Agriculture ,Hunting:research toward Mysticism,Polyteism,Weelgin barracks,change to worker timed with Weel;so,when the build of the worker begins ,city is size 3/4;then,Archery,finish barracks (few units,so the bes I can),archer.
Begin expansion:archer,settler and worker to 2nd city.
Keep repeating(when possible no longer archer,but axeman).
New cities begin with granary,barracks,then the expanding builder (unit,settler,worker).
Expansion is done in a row and finishes when I got some resources and,if necessary,cities for territorial coherence. (Ten to fourteen cities).
By this time,I spended all the money my scout got and science is 30%(I had left it at 100% all the time I could).
I would like very much to ear from you.
Best regards,

[ghen]

Starting with barracks doesn't seem as useful as making a couple military units for scouts and future city defenders. Even in a remote spot you still need a defender to keep the citizens from getting frightened... And who knows, that one extra village you pop could have a tech in it, or at the very least a cool bit of gold for an extra 10 turns at 100% research later

[Wild Pig UK]

I'm curious as to Diadem's point of view on wanton deforesting with respect to this strategy.

My normal strategy, as of the moment, is to run to bronze working while making a worker initially. I use the initial warrior/scout to find a second city. I then immediately chop out a settler for the second city.

At that point I essentiallly use the vertical growth strategy for the first city, while using the second city to run horizontal growth. I have found, using the chop/pop rush combination, that after making one settler, I can still effectively get all of the wonders with my main city and still foster horizontal expansion/unit production with my second city (and third and fourth and fifth). Kind of an effective compromise between vertical and horizontal growth, without hampering either too severely.

When I try to simply turtle with my first city to get to the population cap without deforesting, I tend to miss out on a few of the early wonders (I have found Oracle is often made by 1500 BC), especially if I interrupt building the wonder to make settlers/workers when at the cap as suggested. Considering I always play an industrious civ, I find that a little disconcerting. Moreover, I find missing an early wonder I was building to be crippling with the vertical growth strategy.

[amicus curiae]

This is pretty much how I have played since civ1. Another benifit is it cuts down on micrmanaging. The only thing I would disagree with is waiting to found a second city. I usually want to found another 2-3 cities right away before the ai takes the best spots. Then I stay with these cities for pretty much the entire game. I may take over the odd ai capital if it is in a good spot, but for the most part I destroy cities. This strategy allows for a variety of victory types as well.

[Stageon]

While MCS seems like a reasonable strategy economically, I wonder about a really pitched war, especially on larger maps. I've not played OCC, and I've always wondered how you keep up unit-wise with only one city - not in terms of hammers necessarily, but in the fact that a single city can only produce 1 unit a turn no matter how many hammers it's making.

So let's say you're pumping out your favorite unit every turn...while the AI is producing units every turn or two (or three), but in multiple cities. Won't he be able simply overwhelm you after awhile? Now scale that problem up to MCC, where you have more cities but still fewer than the AI/other humans. Not as much of a problem, but in an all-out war couldn't having fewer production centers become an issue?