The "Size-5" strategy

[Smash]

quote: Originally posted by Smash on 09-23-2000 02:48 PM This "hire specialist" scheme does have a place in any game.You don't have to do this all the time.You may want to do this during certain parts of a game.And maybe not every city. It works really well in scenarios.You can get techs way before you were supposed to.Its fairly easy to generate 5000 beakers in the first 2 turns of Red Front for example. A good tactic for fast science but eventually you need some sheilds.I find myself hiring scientists and taxmen at certain times.

[LeeT]

I've been using the Size 5 city, and more generally the idea of city specialization in standard SP and MP games, and find them both effective and enjoyable, (as opposed to ICS which I always screw up and find annoying).

But I don't see the point in using it in scenarios. If I have to blow out city improvements to pay the bills, the scenario wasn't well made, and I won't finish it, and if I don't need to sell them off, I won't, even if I am paying upkeep on an Aqueduct in a size 1 city. MP, especially against friends, is all about squeaking out every last ounce of advantage you can, but scenarios have their own house rules I feel.

I'm currently finishing Harlan's Pacific War scenario, and I could have sold off endless improvements and bought freight to deliver, hired tons of scientists, and probably matched the allies one tech advance per turn. But if Harlan had meant for that to happen, he wouldn't have made the Japanese based on a Fundy government.

The whole point is to sweat as he gets ever closer to the atom bomb while you to finally get a Fighter strong enough to take down a SuperFortress Bomber. Or conquer India, buy up Libraries and Universities with the european imperialist gold you captured and triumphantly earn that one advance every three turns!

An MP game using a scenario... well that'd be a different story

[markusf]

I find this is one of the most useless strats... You lose production, and you actually lose trade. If you have trade routes in your cities (seems most people don't) the trade routes in your local city and destination cities will all decrease the loss here is more then any potential gain... Then you have the loss of shield production which can again be significant...

arii uses this strat against me all the time, and i can easilly beat him in any science race. expand expand expand. Science isn't that important...

[markusf]

duplicate
[This message has been edited by markusf (edited March 20, 2001).]

[Xin Yu]

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 03-20-2001 01:02 PM Science isn't that important...

Yes, science is not that important, but wonders are. Size-5 strategy was designed for getting wonders faster. By doing so shield production was sacreficed for a while until certain techs could be reached. Then all 5 citizens were put back to work to get the wonder built faster.

Arii should target the right wonders (HG, Pyramids, Lighthouse, and if more than 2 players, GL) and build them fast. Then he'll be in a good shape.

[rah]

As always, I take any strategy Xin points out seriously. But on this one I have to agree with Markus. I played with the strategy a few times and it was only useful in a few situations.

Early in the game getting to monarchy.
I usually get to monarchy long before you can take advantange of it.
(short of sacrificing the second settler, which negatively impacts early expansion).

And the loss of production and trade offsets the science gains in the mid-game. If you're optimizing trade (like Markus) the beaker difference is quite small. And the addition of the caravans lost due to reduced production can offset the small beaker difference.

Situations where it can be useful.
1. If I can't find trade specials early and am forced to settle on low production, high food location. Usually after wandering at the beginning way too long and still not finding trade specials. Then I can make the strategy pay off.

2. Temporary science boost. If I'm researching a government tech(or the one preceeding one, and I'm trying not to miss an Oedo year, it can be effective. Same thing on a wonder tech when the race is afoot.

Summary, it can be useful as a short term strategy, but the loss in trade/production/food does not make it a viable long term strat.

RAH

[Adam Smith]

I wonder if the assessment of this strategy depends on whether you are in single of double production. In double production you you give up twice as much production to get the same amount of science, so this strategy is not as attractive.

I have used this strategy in single production and find it a good way to nail down specific governments or wonder techs in the short term. However, when going after wonder techs you have to both develop the technology AND exploit it (by building the wonder), so you need to time both science AND production in the last few turns. This may necessitate taking some cities out of the size five strategy.

edit: in parens

------------------
Old posters never die.
They justfadeaway

[This message has been edited by Adam Smith (edited March 21, 2001).]

[Scouse Gits]

Works well in our version of ICS - the 'core cities' Xin for the science and the 'empire' builds caravans ...

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[DaveV]

I agree with AS that this is a dubious tactic at 2x production but worthwhile at 1x. My standard sleaze now includes a handful of size 5 cities cranking out more beakers than the rest of my cities combined. The rest of the empire provides the production capacity.

[rah]

Wasn't thinking in terms of 1x vs 2x production since I so seldomly play 1x in MP. You may have a good point. But even taking that into consideration, I still think of it as a short term strat. And trade/expansion for the long term.

[arii]

Lol Markusf.
I beat you using variants of this strategy just as much as you beat me. If I would use this strategy in its pure form I agree that the lost expantion and prodution would doom you. I typically do it for 1 maybe 2 cities at the max and only when I badly need science (ie stuck in desp when I have gotten a bunch of crap techs from the hutts).

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by rah on 03-21-2001 09:13 AM Summary, it can be useful as a short term strategy, but the loss in trade/production/food does not make it a viable long term strat. RAH

I agree.
In fact I don't think Xin Yu designed that strat as a long term one.
Personally I use it mostly in my future SSC (growing any city from size 3 to size 5 takes a lot of time when one uses the 'natural' way of producing food in excess and stacking it in the box, so doing it in one turn using B command and 2 settlers is a real boost to that city).
Perhaps some strong specialists of early Republic manage to grow the city to size 8 very early using WLTCD. Personally I don't feel clever enough to take advantage of Republic that early. Hence I grow my SSC to size 8 either using 3 more settlers or 3 food caravans. A few turns of 'size 5' in the meantime provide about 10 beakers/turn in that city on the average and I find it precious.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[markusf]

quote: Originally posted by arii on 03-21-2001 12:21 PM Lol Markusf. I beat you using variants of this strategy just as much as you beat me. If I would use this strategy in its pure form I agree that the lost expantion and prodution would doom you. I typically do it for 1 maybe 2 cities at the max and only when I badly need science (ie stuck in desp when I have gotten a bunch of crap techs from the hutts).

Perhaps, but any time you do it in a city with trade routes your city loses a lot of food and production and really only gains 4 or 5 beakers on a city doing 50 science before you did it. As + 8 routes will decline to +5

And arri i was refering to our space race games where you tried it. I won the tech race every single time. Probably more do to with a optimized growing strat then anything else.... on 2x this strat is totally useless, on 1x its next to useless How is anyone supposed to build wonders if they spent all their early game time sacrificing production and settlar building for science? If you have few cities you can't build caravans.

[Xin Yu]

Size 5 works better in 2x! The only difference is that you don't add two settlers to the city, you only add 1 (or even none if you don't want to).

Suppose you are in 2x production and you have a few grass with one food special (wheat, fish, musk). Nearby you have a few forest with one shield special (bull, coal). You build one on grass, using the food special, another on grass but near forest, using the shield special. You can quickly grow both cities to size 4 and add one settler from the forest city to the grass city. Then the food city will be able to live with only 1 worker since even on despotism the city will have 9 food, thus you only have 1 food shortage so your existing food can last very long.

Now your forest city will build a wonder and your grass city will do the research. If you can build a library in the grass city it alone will be able to give you 3-4 turns per tech before trade. The size 4 forest city will be able to build a wonder in 12 turns. Advanced tribes are not rare in multiplayers so you'll have a third city from a hut.

[markusf]

And you will be dead shortly after that.
unless your playing 5 billion small, any other setting using that strat and you would be destroyed on 2x. the focus on 2x is to get as many huts and horses as you can asap.