Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two variations of perfectionism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two variations of perfectionism

    You can be a perfectionist who builds some of the nice wonders, and all of the city improvements. Or you can be a perfectionist who builds some of the improvements, but all of the good wonders.

    I've tried both, and IMO, the latter is better. You'll probably have fewer cities, since you'll be building so many caravans.

    Thoughts?

  • #2
    I like the second way too. I build all kinds of wonders in my capital or science city, but the other towns have nothing more than a temple and city walls when I get around to them. I usually wind up with 40-50 trade routes when its all over.

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

    Old posters never die.
    They j.u.s.t..f..a..d..e...a...w...a...y....

    Comment


    • #3
      Iīm not sure if I really hit the intention of your thread, but when I read the header, I was expecting something different.

      Before I joined this forum, my definition of perfectionism was the same as you described first. Meanwhile I know that building all improvements in each city is a bad strategy. And how can a bad strategy be perfectionist strategy?

      Concerning the wonders: By far the better strategy. But I donīt see the perfectionist element in this. Can you elaborate this? What are IYO the important wonders and how many of them do you need to call it perfectionism?

      Thatīs why my definition became a different one. It hasnīt to do with what you build. It is more relevant how you manage your cities.
      How many shields or corn do you waste? How many turns does it take until the improvements you build (temples, granaries, aquaducts etc) are really needed? Can you prevent unrest in your cities before it breaks out? ...

      Thatīs why IMHO the most perfectionist playing style is the ICS style, although there are almost no improvents or wonders be built. Funny, isnīt?

      Comment


      • #4
        Perfectionist strategy has no descriptive meaning. When you see "Infinite City Sleaze" the first time you know it has something to do with building lots of cities.

        Perhaps a better name for the stratgy of building almost all wonders could be called "Wonderful Strategy."

        A strategy that emphasizes building caravans might be called "FedEx Strategy."

        Other people probably have better ideas.
        If you can not think of a good reason to build something other than a caravan, build a caravan!

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't agree that perfectionism means building "all" the city improvements. It means building those that will bring a swift return on the shields invested. I agree that city management is the main thrust of perfectionism, but disagree emphatically that ICS represents the perfectionist mindset.

          I don't think we should abandon the term "perfectionist" just because it has no descriptive meaning. We use the term because the game designers use it. But they use it in contradistinction to the term "expansionist", and I personally feel that if we are going to use either term we ought to preserve the distinction they had in mind. My interpretation of the distinction is that it has mainly to do with where you spend your energy.

          The one-city game is the extreme example of perfectionism. You have only one city and all your energy is devoted to maximizing that city's potential. Of course, you don't build *all* the improvements just as you don't build all the wonders. You build only the ones that will get you to your goal. It is the supreme model of efficient city management.

          The ICS is the extreme example of expansionism. You have dozens, sometimes a couple hundred cities, and the potential of none of them is maximized. Most are completely undeveloped. The player's energy is devoted to building more cities and claiming more territory. I do not see how it can seriously be asserted that this, a strategy that avoids almost entirely the difficulties of managing a developed city, is a model of perfectionism.

          It looks to me like what Flavor and Adam describe is a hybrid that strives to combine the best features of each style.

          But it's not at all clear to me what the difference is between building "some of the nice wonders" and "all of the good ones". In my games this usually amounts to the same thing. I echo Sonderermittler's question: what IYO are the "good" wonders?

          I know that in my capitol/science city I want the 4 science wonders. I usually build Adam Smith because I build many improvements. I want one of the happy wonders. Then what? Perhaps Magellan? What else do I need?
          [This message has been edited by valmont (edited November 15, 1999).]

          Comment


          • #6
            here are the "all" wonders that aren't "some" wonders.

            1. Oracle--it allows good republic love early
            2. HG--see above (I usually build one or the other depending on how many cities I'm going for.)
            3. KRC
            4. DV
            5. Eiffel
            6. JSB *AND* Mike's Chapel. Otherwise, you build one, conquer the other when you get around to it.
            7. WS--keep it from the AI; have it handy for punitive, democratic wars, and a navy.

            The other distinction is whether I'm willing to give up Leo's. Face it, with a 5-6 city civ, it's not that great of a wonder; it isn't hard to just disband obsolete units and build modern ones, in 5-6 cities.

            Comment


            • #7
              I use the second first, then the first second:
              i.e.:
              BUILD ALL THE WONDERS POSSIBLE.
              BUILD ALL THE CITY IMPROVEMENTS.

              Comment


              • #8
                Flavor, Adam:

                Do you not build improvements in the science city either? [aside from aqueduct and sewer]

                It seems to me that at some point, the return on building a library and university in the SSC has to at least be equal to the return on a caravan. Is this demonstrably wrong?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Adam Smith.... you don't put markets or banks in your science city???? i guess i learned something new today??? I am a great civ player but i cannot alway get all the science wonders .... but everyone else talks like it happens everygame... or am i just hearing what "usually" happens in your games... doesnt' a bank or market help science?
                  Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Valmont:
                    I cant speak for Flavor Dave (good to see him back), but I guess my post was a bit unclear. I put a library, university, superhighway, and a research lab in my super science city as soon as the technology is available, along with a temple, city walls, aqueduct, and sewer system as needed. All of these improvements are bought (after one turn), not built. I dont bother with markets, banks, or stock exchanges, since the science city can celebrate without them, and I have science at 80-100% by then anyway.

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

                    Old posters never die.
                    They j.u.s.t..f..a..d..e...a...w...a...y....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A bank, marketplace, and stock market are all must haves in a science city. Your science output is partially dependant to the amount of trade you generate, including inside one particular city. Adam, it sounds as if you are not getting the most from your science city. Thoughts, anyone?
                      "Three word posts suck!" - me

                      "...and I never will play the Wild Rover no more..." - Various

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Bohlen: the bank, marketplace and stock exchange do not affect the amount of trade your city has, they affect the amount of gold that results from the trade arrows. If the science rate is 80%, in theory you might not be generating sufficient gold to make the improvements cost effective. In practice, however, I can't imagine a good science city not generating at least enough gold, even at 80 or 90% science, to at least make the marketplace and bank worthwhile.
                        "I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance."
                        Jonathan Swift

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Marketplaces, banks, and stock exchanges will make it more likely that your city will experience we love the King, Consul, or President days. They are especially helpfull if you have a low luxury rate.
                          If you can not think of a good reason to build something other than a caravan, build a caravan!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It seems some clarifying remarks about trade are in order. Trade in the city comes from two sources: terrain and trade routes. Trade from terrain has a static value -- a city without routes will only generate as much trade as its population and terrain allows. But the value of trade routes is dynamic, and that's part of what makes it interesting. The value of a trade route increases as the overall trade in the city increases. Thus, each additional trade route in the city augments the value of the previous routes.

                            Once one appreciates the dynamic value of trade routes, it becomes clear that the more caravans you build, the more each individual caravan is worth.

                            There are two other aspects of caravans that make them excellent investments: each time you deliver a caravan, you'll get a bonus of gold, and an equal amount of flasks added to your research window. This explains where the gold in Adam's treasury comes from.

                            Judging from Adam's past posts, I'll wager he's done enough calculations to convince himself that the benefit of building a caravan outweighs the benefit of building a market, bank, or stock exchange.
                            [This message has been edited by valmont (edited November 24, 1999).]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Adam: i guess i misinterpreted your post. I was confusing WLTKD's with the science city... i never use luxuries unless i am celebrating... Science is always maxed out for me the rest goes to taxes... therefore i need the marketplaces .... perhaps i should change my strategy. Actually i use luxuries after celebrating as the population has grown significantly by then
                              Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X