Analysis of resource square usage

[DaveV]

To try to shed some light debate over where is the best place to put city workers, I've set up a "thought experiment" contrasting use of resource squares. I'll say at the outset that this is vastly oversimplified, but, I think, still instructive.

Assumptions:

Each city is built on a square that yields 2 food, 1 shield, 1 trade. Each city has a choice of three types of surrounding terrain to work:
1 food, 2 shield, no trade (forest)
2 food, 1 shield, 1 trade (grassland)
1 food, no shield, 2 trade (ocean)

Each city must build a warrior to keep order, then will build settlers. It takes 10 turns from
the time a settler is built until it can build a new city.

When a city builds a settler, its size decreases by one and any food in the box is applied at
that new city size. So if a size 2 city with 20 food in the box builds a settler, it stays at size 2. I think this is how the game works, but haven't done a detailed study.

Cases:

Player A puts all his workers on ocean. He builds a warrior in 10 turns, and a settler 40 turns after that. 40 turns for each subsequent settler. It takes him 20 turns to grow to size 2. His cities generates 3 trade/turn while size 1, and 5 trade/turn while size 2.

After 50 turns: 1 city, 1 settler, 210 total arrows
After 100 turns: 2 cities, 3/4 settler, 560 total arrows
After 150 turns: 5 cities, 2 settler, (2) 1/2 settler, 1310 total arrows

Player B puts his worker for size 1 cities on grassland, then moves both workers to ocean after his city grows to size 2. He builds a warrior in 5 turns, and a settler 35 turns after that. It takes him 10 turns to grow to size 2. 35 turns for each subsequent settler. His cities generate 2 trade/turn while size 1, and 5 trade/turn while size 2.

After 50 turns: 2 cities, 190 total arrows
After 100 turns: 4 cities, 3/4 settler, (2) 3/8 settler, 635 total arrows
After 150 turns: 8 cities, (3) 3/4 settler, (3) 3/8 settler, 1/4 settler, 1660 total arrows

Player C puts his first worker on grassland, and his second on ocean. He builds a warrior in 5 turns, and a settler 20 turns after that. 20 turns for each subsequent settler. It takes him 10 turns to grow to size 2, but his cities never drop below size 2 after once growing there (20 extra food generated while building settler, just enough to stay at size 2). His cities generate 2 trade/turn while size 1, and 4 trade/turn while size 2.

After 50 turns: 2 cities, 1 settler, 200 total arrows
After 100 turns: 8 cities, (5) 1/2 settler, 860 total arrows
After 150 turns: 21 cities, 13 settler, 3060 total arrows

Player D puts his worker for size 1 cities on grassland, then moves one worker to ocean and one to forest after his city grows to size 2. He builds a warrior in 5 turns, and a settler 15 turns after that. 17 turns for each subsequent settler. It takes him 10 turns to grow to size 2. His cities generate 2 trade/turn while size 1, and 3 trade/turn while size 2.

After 50 turns: 3 cities, 1 settler, 29/40 settler, 186 total arrows
After 100 turns: 14 cities, 1 settler, 7 partial settler, 945 total arrows
After 150 turns: 47 cities, 10 settler, 24 partial settler, 4178 total arrows

Player E puts his worker for size 1 cities on grassland, then moves both workers to forest after his city grows to size 2. He builds a warrior in 5 turns, and a settler 11 turns after that. 14 turns for each subsequent settler. It takes him 10 turns to grow to size 2. His cities generate 2 trade/turn while size 1, and 1 trade/turn while size 2.

After 50 turns: 3 cities, 2 settler, 1 partial settler, 148 total arrows
After 100 turns: 21 cities, 14 settler, 6 partial settler, 1004 total arrows
After 150 turns: 129 cities, 16 settler, 64 partial settler, 5750 total arrows

[Miner]

Impressive! any chance of a 2 line summary?

[Miner]

Actually, this seems to support the ICS strategy.

[DaveV]

2 line summary:

In the early growth phase, grow your city to population 2 as quickly as possible. Then place your citizens to maximize your shields.

This runs counter to what many advise, to emphasize trade arrows at the expense of food and shields. My conclusion is that it is best to build your cities quickly, even at the sacrifice of some arrows.

[Adam Smith]

I agree with DaveV's analysis. Sometimes it is worth going a little heavier on the trade arrows until you get Monarchy or Trade, but after that just max out your production. Over the long run, when you can build and trade caravans or freight units, production is MORE important than trade. Take a good look at your civ just before you land on AC. You already have all the science you need to get there. But if you look closely, you will find foreign cities where you could have used freight units to fill a demand, and domestic cities where you could have profitably built a library, university, or superhighway. Unexploited science opportunities such as these are an indication that you should have had more production and less trade earlier in the game, allowing you to land on AC sooner.

------------------
Old posters never die, they just f.a.d.e..a..w..a..y . . .

[Winston]

Well I never! A perfectionist approach at ICS.

The premise of a settler averaging 10 turns before founding a new city would require at least laying down some roads once you get past say, 20-25 cities. Otherwise, how will you get settlers from your core cities to unsettled land with the resources you outline fast enough to meet the 10 turn average? Anyway, certainly some food for thought in there.

I'll have to try this ICS thing at least once before judging, but I'm a little afraid it'll rid the game of many of the features that make up the uniquely balanced gameplay, i.e. improvements, positioning of units, putting your immidiate needs in order of priority and so on. Have you had any of these concerns, DaveV?

[DaveV]

Winston,

I agree that the ICS does take some of the challenge out of the game. An ICSer has fewer decisions to make, therefore has an easier game. On the other hand, I think most experienced players have their games pretty well scripted. You're not going to stop in the middle of every game and ask yourself "Hmm, should I build a library or marketplace first?". You've decided what works best for you, and that's what you do.

ICS is not some sort of dastardly cheat that robs the game of its challenge and fun; rather, it's just the most efficient way to play. Look at a couple of the popular Windows games: Freecell and Minesweeper. The former is winnable every game; the latter, most games. Yet people still play those games and don't impose handicaps on their gameplay to make the game more challenging. The object is to have fun, nothing more nor less.

Imagine if the AI had been taught the ICS technique. With its happiness and production cheats, the AI might actually be a challenge!

(climbs down from soapbox with a sheepish look)

[Winston]

Oh, no you don't! Sheep wouldn't use ICS, they'd just stand around doing nothing for 6,000 years. Wolves on the other hand, ...

Thanks, DaveV. I will try it one of these days. It has to be a faster paced game than my usual ones, I suppose.

Oh, and congratulations on your incredible 1595 win!!

[Steve Clark]

I like what Adam Smith said. It seems to be a slight compromise to DaveV's summary. I think you would find a concensus that it is important to get to Monarchy asap, that means maxing out the trade workers early on. Once at Monarchy, concentrating on production to generate more science is very insightful.
That's the genius of Civ2, so many different strategies to try.

[Seeker]

I know u didnt consider them, but what about specials? almost every city i build will have a special. Shouldn't i always choose the special, i.e. choose spice vs plain forest, whale vs mined hill?

[cavebear]

DaveV - Aren't you ignoring the tech advance rate in this? Or are you saying that you catch up and surpass at a later time? Where do Wonders fit in to this plan?

[Matthew]

Very interresting summary. But against human compeditors one does take the risk of losing some key wonders by sacrificing early trade, and sooner or later the double unhappies will pop up, although with such small cities I guess a temple would do the job.

[geofelt]

I think davev has it about right, but building settlers quickly applies to a non-ics approach also. You disband a city if you complete a settler before the city is size 2. Therefore, you must build SOMETHING first. Usually this is a warrior. I then start on a settler, planning it for completion soon after getting to size2. I do this by picking an appropriate square to be worked. In some cases, I work grassland to get food, then shift to forest for shields part way through. I always try to found a city on grassland, insuring quick growth to size 2. Also, This is why pyramids is such a good wonder. The food box is always half full, making it easier to grow. By continually spawning settlers, you can keep unrest in check. You will find that the extra cities will keep you up on trade. As the cities expand from the center, settlers from the inner cities can build roads and mine while the outer cities spawn more cities.

[Scouse Gits]

Thanks to all the above...

A thread for my printed archive.
-------------
Scouse Git[1]