which is better?

[Ridock The Savage]

Cities spaced far enough apart so they can utilize all the sqaures they can...or...cities closer together so you'll have more cities for production?

Also, has anyone ever seen the AI use a carrier?
I was playing a game yesterday, and these bombers were coming out of nowhere...I sent planes and ships all over the place and couldn't find a carrier. Is the AI just sending it's bombers out on suicide missions knowing they won't have enough fuel to return?

[DaveV]

The city spacing debate is ongoing. You can play very effectively using either approach.

From what I've read, you need to change the rules.txt to make the AI use carriers. AI bombers never crash.

[Ridock The Savage]

Thanks Dave!

Well in that case I'll keep spacing my cities until someone can prove it's better otherwise.

Damn...didnt know that AI bombers never crash...how else does the AI cheat?

[drake]

I think it all depends on personal style. There are advantages to both methods. In short term games where I know a city will not reach it's maximum potential (utilization of all squares), I don't care if city zones overlap. If I am playing a long term game where I know I'll need some large powerhouse cities in the future, I make sure they are spaced accordingly.

[kcbob]

RTS, what you're asking is the age old question, "Which is better, Perfectionist Expansionism or ICS (Infinite City Sleaze)?"

Either way will win a game. It depends on your skill level with each, size of the world for a particular game, the level of difficulty at which you are playing, and the version of the game you are using.

I've found that using MGE, small world, deity, raging hordes, ICS is easier to win with. PE can still win a game but it's more difficult.

As a matter of fact, I believe it was DaveV who put together the best thread regarding ICS. If somebody else doesn't post it before I come back, I'll try to find it and post it.

Here it is. Enjoy. It's superb!
http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/wittgenst...s_strategy.htm

------------------
Frodo lives!
[This message has been edited by kcbob (edited November 16, 2000).]

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Ridock The Savage on 11-16-2000 09:41 AM Damn...didnt know that AI bombers never crash...how else does the AI cheat?

This thread contains a pretty comprehensive list: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum3/HT...tml?date=08:38

[Ming]

Thanks for posting the link... I was looking for it, and then got lost reading old threads

In MP games, I go overlapping cities. Since everybody is aggressively going for turf, if you limit yourself to no overlap, you run out of room to start additional cities. If I get a good four special pattern on the start, I will usually build my first two cities almost on top of each other so each can utilize two specials.
Less corruption that way, and you get your cities down fast.

[N35t0r]

i personally often overlap in order to fit in cities more efficiently.

also, in small free spaces i always fund cities which remain small...

[drake]

quote: In MP games, I go overlapping cities. Since everybody is aggressively going for turf, if you limit yourself to no overlap, you run out of room to start additional cities.

Ming, this is confusing. If you want to capture territory, you want to use as much space as possible right? So if you don't overlap your cities, you're getting more land mass.....correct? Do you mean building the most cities is a good way to prevent getting the shaft when the city limit for the planet has been reached....please explain....?????

[Scouse Gits]

drake - the game is all about power. To have power you must have power bases - cities. Each city contributes the tools of power - gold, science and production. You can put down 10/100 overlapping cities, linked by a road system, much faster than building them in the ideally placed perfectionist mode.

The game is about territory, but in the initial stage you must to have enough force to threaten your opponents' territories, as well as defending your own. The best method of defence is attack!

Suppose you share your continent with the Mongols. Would you rather have 30 cities building chariots and diplos or just five?

I am an ICS player at heart - there is nothing wrong with the Perfectionist approach. However, in my limited experience of MP it is imperative to have a power surge from turn one. That means building cities close together, if only to have enough caravan production for a key wonder or two.

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

SG (2)

[Ming]

drake... yes, territory is important. And yes, you should take as much as you can. But there is a finite amount of land... especially when everbody is fighting for the same land. Let me put it this way... If you and I both have the same amount of land, and I have 20 cities with some overlap, and you have 12 cities with no overlap... I'll take my chances

[Moker Guy]

Im sure i play quite differnt then most people here but i always build my cities very close, in 2x2x and 1x1x. The key to building cities close is to improve the land that you have. You also must take into consideration of how much food you will be able to give the city once it is reaching maximum space size. One place that i build cities even closer togther is port cities on the ocean. make a harbor and you increase your food automatically. with these cities i try and cover as much of the ocean as possible and leave the land spaces for cities inland. this helps to boost your trade faster as well.

Moker

------------------
Im here to play civ. Screw all of this political BS. Give me a game of civ with good players, that are more than just robots, and im having fun. I bet everyone else is too. Who cares who wins or loses? Its better to make friends than make enemies. Who knows you might run into a very important person on here.

Oh yeah EyesOfNight is the most pathetic person i have ever ment in my life.

[Smash]

Assuming average terrain(whatever that is) then I believe an ICS type start is best.Then bleed out "settler" cities at some point.


[This message has been edited by Smash (edited November 17, 2000).]

[drake]

Those explanations are much more sufficient...thank you guys. Does anyone have a better argument for going perfectionist rather than ics?

Having "sleaze" everywhere doesn't set well with my empire, but neither does sitting last on the power graph. I prefer a little of both worlds. But the method of attaining both (that I use) is time consuming and requires good diplomatic skill......it also requires a great deal of patience, which I have seen a lack of in the mp world.....



What does anyone think of this?

[kcbob]

I think that's about the best graph/chart I've ever seen in my life. All I seem to be able to do is keyboard characters in Courier font.

But with regards to your question, I'm finding that it's easier to start ICS and work my way to PE (Perfectionist Expansionism) through "bleeding" as Smash referred to. If I try to start PE, it is much tougher.

------------------
Frodo lives!