Questions

[Strategist83]

Hi guys,

Started playing Civ again after a two years break.

I've got a few questions that need clearing up mostly related to how to improve my play. Got BtS as well now, awesome addition.

So, I'd like to get better. I read posts on the forums here about people launching space ships around what would usually be the age of finding the Americas which I'd of course like to be able to immitate but just doesn't find is possible at all.

I was intrigued by the 'crossover metric' idea discussed below this thread and did a few games (standard settings, noble, shuffle map type, choose religion settings) to see if I would be competetive. Clearly, there are a few things I need to improve on to see some of the results listed on that thread. I've been hitting the 'crossover' from 160-180ish turns.

In these games, I've been building practically nothing but cottages (though not to the point of deleting my production). So I really have no idea how somebody could be crossing over as much as 40 turns earlier.

I could upload a few savegames but for now let's just tend to the general stuff. Frankly, I find it hard to see where to improve: I specialize my cities (pretty much cottages all over though but I place some on hills), I expand fast (not overexpanding) to a reasonable size/# of cities, I plop down tons of cottages, build only the needed structures in cities, I have workers meaningfully assigned so cities tend to be working only properly improved plots etc, try to play to effectively utilize my civ's traits, make reasonable tech trades etc.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is I'm not making any 'newbie' mistakes. But somewhere, somehow it's apparently possibly to hit the same amount of beaker income per turn I do a good 20-30 turns faster. How in the hell?

*

Moreover, I have a couple of question about Specialists & Great People:

a) How are Specialists not a totally underpowered/broken game element? A scientist specialist, for example, creates a measly 3 beakers/turn yet consumes two food units while yielding none. This means you need a great food source or two farms (which are generally considered bad to the point they should be avoided) just to power him. You could be spending 3 population just to work the farms to power the specialist and the specialist himself. Even if it helps generating great people, how on earth is a specialist ever cost-efficient? With the Representation civic things improve, of course, but considering those 3 population could be powering 3 towns and a net 0 food deficit, how are specialists ever worthwhile?

b) Generating great people: Does it even make sense to have more than one city with specialists for the purpose of creating GP? Since each GP raises the bar for when the next will arrive (100, 200, 300... GP points required), if just one city generates GP at twice the rate of any other, only that city will ever create a GP and the GP points in all other cities will go to waste. How does this make any sense and how is this not also a broken game element?

Many thanks for any advice.

[Boracks]

Others can likely answer better but what I've learned is that with specialists you can lower your science slider and still generate a lot of beakers (science points). And with representation (pyramids really help), you can use specialists in other area (like merchants to generate gold) and still get beakers.

I like to have at least two cities doing well for GP points, and I try and point them towards different types so I have some flexability. One temds to be my science city (especially if I get the Great Library), the other will often go for priests and engineers. Although another thing I've learned from these forums is that a great spy can be useful and get you a number of techs that someone else has that you don't.

[rah]

Specialists are really good early in the game when you have happiness and health limitations especially when combined with pyramids. You can use them to control growth and the first few Great people can be generated quickly.

[Strategist83]

First of all, I want to add that I discovered at least a slight improvement to my early strategy. I had overlooked/forgotten how river tiles yield +1 commerce. I always thought Civ downplayed the importance of cities founded near rivers (which, in real life, all the important early cities were), granting only a small health bonus, but this corrects the issue which is good news.

Secondly, good replies. Thanks for that, but...

Others can likely answer better but what I've learned is that with specialists you can lower your science slider and still generate a lot of beakers (science points). And with representation (pyramids really help), you can use specialists in other area (like merchants to generate gold) and still get beakers.

There's really not much gained by this as far as I can tell. Since beakers == commerce is ALMOST true (it's largely just a matter of research percentage setting), there is no real difference and the point is moot. This is another bash I want to take at Civ; I believe it fails at discerning between research and commerce, making it impossible to specialize cities into commerce centers or research factories. What good is it that you can build banks and markets when you might as well build libraries and universities? Of course, it's a no-brainer that if you are only converting a small amount of commerce into research the commerce-boosting buildings will serve you better, but just how often do you see that happening as a long-term solution? You are going to convert it right back into research afterwards, unless you intend to purchase every single of your technologies from your opponents.

I like to have at least two cities doing well for GP points, and I try and point them towards different types so I have some flexability. One temds to be my science city (especially if I get the Great Library), the other will often go for priests and engineers. Although another thing I've learned from these forums is that a great spy can be useful and get you a number of techs that someone else has that you don't.

You don't explain WHY you like this? What is the benefit of having two GP cities rather than one? You can only have one National Epic, so this is inefficient.

Please note that I'm not saying GP completely suck and you should avoid them altogether; you obviously need some to create academies etc. But largely, your population points are better spent working cottages. And this really sucks, dumbing down the game.

Specialists are really good early in the game when you have happiness and health limitations especially when combined with pyramids. You can use them to control growth and the first few Great people can be generated quickly.

Good point! That's a valid use of Specialists. Yet, then we're still talking the early game and later on this suggested use is then moot.

*

See, this I perceive as something Civ fails horribly at portraying: With technological advancements came specialization, we no longer all had to run around hunting for bears and berries and had the luxury to assign roles such as priests, blacksmiths and so on. Yet, is this what happens in Civ? Hardly. Sure, you have a few specialists but even in a modern civ society you have 80-90% of the workforce working the land (cottages, granted, but still 'the land') when in real life it's the exact opposite.

I suppose it's because farms suck so much. So maybe it's in fact the farm that's broken which in turn means the specialists are broken? Either way, I still see the system as broken. Please convince me otherwise!

[rah]

Farms allow you to work more mines for production or assign more specialists. If you're not financial and not near the sea, and philosophical, I guarantee I can produce more science using a specialist economy. But I'll still have one city that's a cottage farm that will be used to generate cash.

It's all about the multipliers. Learn them, use them.

Heck in the modern age with the right wonders and civics you could have more than a dozen specialists working in a city. Cranking Great people at a rate that would amaze you.


It's not broken, you just haven't learned to take advantage of it yet.

One of the strengths of CIV IV is offering many different ways to attain the goals.

[Ming]

I believe it fails at discerning between research and commerce, making it impossible to specialize cities into commerce centers or research factories.

While there is "some" truth to what you say, it is very POSSIBLE to specilize cities. First, the Shrine cities for the religions generate extra Cash on a base level. And then by using a Multiplyer Wonder like Wall Street, you increase just the cash element. Add in the use of merchant specialists, cottages, trade routes and you can create a real power house in producing cash. And sure you can build regular cash multiplyers in every city, but WHY? Some cities will never really produce enough cash/science to make it worth while... plus, you need some true production cities to crank out units. It's very easy to tailor cities to cash, research, and production regardless of the actual percentage settings. Even at Zero cash/100% research, you can be generating cash in a city thanks to shrines, specialists, wonders, and buildings.

As rah said... It's all about the multipliers. Learn them, use them.

[Jaybe]

Even at Zero cash/100% research, you can be generating cash in a city thanks to shrines, specialists, wonders, and buildings.

And, in late game, CORPORATIONS of course!

[Theben]

A city with a library, 2 scientists, and in Representation can generate 15 /turn before adding in the science rate. Early game that's a LOT. And while in the long run most of your cities won't generate a great person, it still adds up over time and some of them will have a GP appear later in the game, which can be nice. When you get a GP early game you can 'lightbulb' an expensive tech and trade it around (if desired) to gather a lot of tech, or keep it for an advantage (military, religious, or wonder-whoring).

Late game GP are used for Golden Ages and building corporations, which can be very nice. Try a shrine city with 3 corporations and Wall Street and then tell me GP are weak!

[Calvin Vu]

Regarding the crossover point, I reported early crossover so I'll explain how I did it. I picked Darius leading the Inca to get the best of everything for an earliest expansion (other leaders, including Capac, are possible but are not as good). The main point is that you should not build any settlers at all if you can help it. The only exception is when there is a nearby location which can offer very good commerce to counter the effect of high maintenance cost due to having too many cities too early in the game.
So you should only build barrack and Quechuas from your capital. If your capital has not been stunted in growth by building too many workers/settlers then it should be pretty productive and can crank out a quechua in 3 turns or less. To capture an average city, defended by two archers, you probably lose 2 quechuas. That means it only takes you about 6 turns to have a city, hopefully better than a size 1 and maybe with a few workers as extra bonuses, without stunting the growth of your capital by building a settler. Later, after your surviving quechuas have been promoted to CR2 and CR3, you might take cities without losing any of them at all.
Even if you're not playing with the Inca, early rushes will help also with regular axemen or swordmen. The only problem with this early rush approach is that it can crush your research if you don't have the organized, financial, or even philosophical trait because due to the many far-flung cities. If your research rate goes down to 20-30%, it's OK since it will go back up after putting in a few cottages. If it goes down to 0% and your quechua army gets disbanded then you're probably overextended .
You should try to aim to eliminate at least one civ early in the game and capture at least two cities and see how it helps with the research later. Not only that, if you play with no barbs and no threatening civs remain near you then you don't have to worry much about defending either .

[Baldyr]

a) How are Specialists not a totally underpowered/broken game element?

Try using super specialists. Meaning that you settle your great people in your cities. These specialists are more powerful than the one's who spawned them in the first place, and consume no food at all...

I tried using specialist as a strategy in Civ2 and Civ3, and kinda felt the way you feel about them. I don't however feel this way regarding specialists in Civ4. I pretty much base my games on specialists. They basically add up, with all the multipliers from buildings.

The point of specialists is to specialize your cities. You pretty much only need all the science multipliers in the city where you host all your scientists, and you should build all of the gold multipliers in the city where all your merchants dwell.

Other than that, the commerce sliders can be somewhat overlooked and used to balance out your needs at one given moment. I would, for an example, set my science on 0% once I had everything techwise my workers can utilize, plus Writing. When I'm done with my first libraries (in my first science cities) I'd rise the science percentage as high as I can afford fiscally. The same thing happens again with marketplaces, grocers and banks. I would build these pretty much at the same time in my gold cities (or in all my cities, if I'm about to expand heavily), and immediately after that cash in by rising my gold percentage to maximize the dividend from my investment.

b) Generating great people: Does it even make sense to have more than one city with specialists for the purpose of creating GP?

Your analysis is absolutely correct! This is why you really need to pay attention if your trying to use several cities to generate great people. (City Advisor is very helpful, especially if you have half a dozen or so brewing at the same time.) If you allow one city generate more than double the amount of gpp compared to another city (or other cities), then you're constantly screwed on the gpp you've generated in that city (or those cities).

Bare in mind that the city that actually creates a great person will have its gpp decreased by the amount required to achieve this, making the runner-up city the one with the most ggp. Simply avoid the first city from bypassing the second one, thus letting the next one generate it's great person.

If you, for example, use two identical set-ups (like two cities with three specialists each, accumulating 9 gpp per turn) you will save time (turns) cranking out those initial great scientists, compared to only having one city generating them. What happens is this, as an example:

The cities start to accumulate gpp simultaneously and reach the goal at lets say 100 gpp (after 12 turns). One great people is created, the first city is now at 8 gpp while the other one is still at 108 gpp. The next goal is, lets say, 200 gpp. When the second city reaches this goal (another 92 gpp or 11 turns later), the other city will be at 107 gpp. The second great people is generated and the city that generated it is at 7 gpp. Next step would be at, say, 400 gpp (I actually can't recall how exactly these steps increase, but it also depends on game speed) and it will now take an additional 293 gpp (or 33 turns) to create the third great person. And so on, and so forth.

If only one city would have been involved, it would have had to generate all those 700 gpp required for 3 great people, which would have taken 78 turns in total (78 x 9 = 702). Instead the two cities generated 3,5 (3 completed ones and one that is halfway done) great people in 56 turns. That adds up to 26 turns compared to 16 turns per great person generated. Or about 62% increase in great people production.

disclaimer: I apologize for any bad math. Math be my arch enemy.

[Ming]

And, in late game, CORPORATIONS of course!

Good point... I keep forgetting about corps since I rarely ever take advantage of them.

First, I'm a big fan of State Property since by then, I probably have a sprawling empire. And second, at that point in the game, I'm usually on a mission from god to conquer the world, and I would much rather be building the units than corp executives. By the time the corps really pay off, I'm hoping the game will be over

[Strategist83]

Thanks for replies everyone. I'll just address the main points without long quotes and stuff.

rah, I'll need you to elaborate on how you would go about creating a Specialist economy that surpasses a cottage based one. I realize there's a host of wonders that boost both productivity of Specialists as well as help generate more Great People, but how is that any different from the multipliers to science and/or commerce? Leader traits such as Philo & Financial aside, I still keep seeing the 'farms + specialists combo vs. the pure cottage forest'. You need so much food just to fuel a single specialist, how can it ever be competetive? For the cost of two farms and a specialist in terms of population points, you could field three cottages - where's the competition? Sure, you can argue that it gets better when using food resources instead of farms but I fail to see how that helps things when the extra food from the ressource could just as well be spent increasing city growth rate or allowing for operation of an extra mine.

Please, spill the beans!

Ming, you write that 'And sure you can build regular cash multiplyers in every city, but WHY? Some cities will never really produce enough cash/science to make it worth while...'

-My games don't tend to be very bloody. I don't think I've ever fielded a 'true' Stack of Doom. Why? Frankly, it doesn't seem to be necessary at all, on Noble. Even with no army to speak of, the opposition I encounter is pretty light. As a matter of fact most of my victories are by Domination - pacifist style army or not! I'm pretty much always the tech leader, as well, fielding better units (the AI doesn't seem to bother upgrading old units either which isn't helping it win battles).

So, where do I dump my production points then, if not in the army? Into research/commerce boosting buildings. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to build the cash multipliers in (almost) every city.

Theben: Again, I'm not forsaking GP entirely because they're obviously needed for their special skills.

Also, it's the same argument: Sure, two scientists generating 15 sounds nice, but what if you spent the same amount of population points & food on cottages? It wouldn't take long for the latter to easily surpass the former, especially coupled with some of the cottage-focused civics.

Calvin, I think yours was a special case. I don't think the other posters in that thread were tailoring their Civs with custom Leader/Civ combos and such. I'm looking for a more general buildup strategy which it sounded like is possible.

[Strategist83]

Baldyr:

Other than that, the commerce sliders can be somewhat overlooked and used to balance out your needs at one given moment. I would, for an example, set my science on 0% once I had everything techwise my workers can utilize, plus Writing. When I'm done with my first libraries (in my first science cities) I'd rise the science percentage as high as I can afford fiscally. The same thing happens again with marketplaces, grocers and banks. I would build these pretty much at the same time in my gold cities (or in all my cities, if I'm about to expand heavily), and immediately after that cash in by rising my gold percentage to maximize the dividend from my investment.

That's a great way to take advantage of the dividends, I'll start doing the same.

disclaimer: I apologize for any bad math. Math be my arch enemy.

For your example to be fair there would have had to be twice as many specialists in the single city, so six not three and a GP point income per turn of 18, not 9. That makes for 600 points in 34 turns. So yeah, bad math.

[Baldyr]

For your example to be fair there would have had to be twice as many specialists in the single city, so six not three and a GP point income per turn of 18, not 9. That makes for 600 points in 34 turns. So yeah, bad math.

I've already changed my example, is it still bad math wise?

I'm calculating with 3 gpp per specialist and turn. 3 specialists make 9 gpp/turn. First gp is done on turn 12 (12 x 9 = 108). Second gp is done on turn 23 (11 x 9 + 108 = 207). Third gp is done on turn 56 (33 x 9 + 107 = 404). The gpp required for 3 gp in my example is now 700 (100 + 200 + 400 ) and that amounts to 78 turns (700 x 9 = 702) for a single city.

Damn you math!

[Calvin Vu]

Thanks for replies everyone. I'll just address the main points without long quotes and stuff.

Calvin, I think yours was a special case. I don't think the other posters in that thread were tailoring their Civs with custom Leader/Civ combos and such. I'm looking for a more general buildup strategy which it sounded like is possible.

I did it just for fun but generally it can be done without requiring any special combo or even the special units. The difference isn't that much. If you do the math on how many turns it takes to get new cities then building attackers is a much faster way to do it than building settlers. In the early game, the AI only cares about expansion so their cities are barely defended at all.

Maybe I'll try that crossover game again without using any special combo to see how it goes. I doubt that it would make a big difference unless I pick a leader with a builder trait or I happen to have all tough neighbors. In fact, I could not take advantage of my special combo in that reported game since I had only one neighbor with skirmishers .