Technology improvements vs. trade routes

[Alexander's Horse]

Which is better, particularly early in the game?


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[Smash]

you SortA wanT A balaNce.Don't nEed eVerthing In aLl cities.i usuaLly bUild CIty markets First thEn send foRth my caravans.Delivery rAtes aRe Keener and sO is the scieNcE bonus.

libraries go up first in cities with good trade specials.


[This message has been edited by Smash (edited January 13, 2000).]

[wonderdog4]

Depends on the game. But I do try to balance.

Overall, the overseas trade routes developed with a competitive civlization prior to navigation are the best investments in the long run. But this is something I don't bother with in MP games. It's a waste of everyone else's time and few MP games last past 1000 AD anyway.

[Scouse Gits]

Smash, LOL
Bucephalus, Hey this is CIV you're talking about here, slipping aren't you?

[finbar]

Smash - very good stuff. One humble suggestion. Re-edit and bold the N of "balance".

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[Steve Clark]

AH, you got me curious, why do you ask which is better?

[Alexander's Horse]

The reason I ask is sometimes I don't bother building any science improvements until late in the game. I seem to do better by building caravans in a settler, military unit, caravan, kind of pattern. With monarchy and lots of trade routes to foreign civs I can usually get up the tech tree with about 10 turns between techs. This is supplemented by stealing and trading techs. I also try to site cities where there are whales or other science enhancing resources. I just wondered if others were doing this.



------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[geofelt]

Early on, a city does not produce enough trade to make the continuing income from caravans to be more than 1 or possibly 2. Often it is zero. For less than the cost of a caravan, you can produce a settler and build another city which will produce more trade initially, and grow to much more in the long run. An exception is the science city with colossus. I think it is better strategy to grow as many cities as possible and improve them later.

[War4ever]

i too agree with the exppansion of cities strategy.... although not ics..... well placed and protected cities so that they grow in mid game..... i have noticed mid game is where i tend to stagnate.... always in conflict as to what to build..... agianst ai i just pump out units and take everything by force against humans is completely different

------------------
They call me Mr. Fierce

icq 30200920

[Crustacian]

The balance between TECHnology improvements vs. TRADE routes should be considered no matter how large your cities are, but the matter of GROWTH must be included in your overall decision on balance.

And flexibility to deal with unforseen variables in each game is not in your question but just as important to how you achieve a good balance in the thing you ask.

Make a city or a few small size cities say 3's. Go for libraries and see what they generate overall.

Do the same again only this time go for trade routes and see what that does. See what you are willing to sacrifice in trade routes with the 3-maybe 6 extra trade per turn per city vs. with no routes. It adds up.

Then make growth a priority and see if you can get size 5 or bigger by the same time and see where that brings you. For example how fast can a size 2 or 3 city build a caravan compared to a size 5 (I think a 5 is realistic if you had gone for growth)and how much trade did you really lose each turn by waiting till your cities were bigger to build them.

A count of techs by that year, and overal demographics may show you where each focuss brings you.

Then you will know your real options and have a better feel for which way to go in any given game and how to adjust your balance according to the situation at hand.

Whether you go for optimum growth, or try to balance with maybe one route per city, or try for all routes as early as possible, or build a library early like if you are near a big trade special like gold or spice...or make a science city while your other ones go a differant path...Going heavily into resource is usually a poor choice at the sacrifice of growth and trade early on.

Or what to do when you find a chariot and archer that a close neighbor found in huts come next to your city defended by a warrior!!! As did Carolus Rex to me one game that unfortunately was never finished. He accepted some techs, and also he did not think it fun to take me out so early (he was not sure he could take me out but it was possible) So I lived. Glad I had some techs he needed and I did not speak as if I was weak or talk so big he would know I was bluffing. And thanks to his mercy...

I do like to make trade routes early if possible. Also road your silk, spice, gold, and other trade specials for 1 extra trade. And try to discover hidden specials in grassland...maybe a silk or buffalo will appear in your reforestation project!



------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Alexander's Horse]

You see I agree with the expand your cities vs tech improvement strategy. Caravans mean I don't have to tie down my productive cities building improvements.


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[DaveV]

I think ICS is impossible to beat at Deity. After building HG, I can build vast numbers of cities with *no* improvements and no trade routes. With so many cities, I have good science; with no improvements (and therefore no maintenance), I have lots of cash. I can also have a huge army, which scares the AIs to death. It's not the optimum strategy for going to AC, but I can win through conquest before the AIs research railroad and obsolete HG.

[Mark_Everson]

DaveV:

With all due respect, saying a strategy can beat the AI is no test of its superiority. (I think you are right in your conclusion, just not using the best argument)

IMO Any strategy, even if pathetic and flawed can, in capable hands, win vs the AI. I mean, what could be a dumber strategy than playing with only one city the entire game . And its still winnable vs the AI!

Multiplayer is IMO the only valid test of which strategies are better. Anecdotal evidence here seems to support ICS being at least among the best strategies. Certainly my personal experience leads me to believe ICS is at least a very strong contender for best overall strategy in MP.

Mark

[don Don]

Even if you produce a caravan when the city is size 3 it won't get anywhere for 20 turns, sometimes longer. Then it really only does you good if it's in demand. OK, maybe you get lucky and there is a decent size city closer that isn't at war with you; don't count on it. Early on the Library is better.

Later in the game there will be ships and lots of roads to make the journey quicker, plus more large cities demanding goods. Then I often will pump out one caravan or freight before building anything beyond a Temple.