The Wisdom Of No Hospitals

[Catt]

Originally posted by stonewall
I just advanced a turn in that game and noticed a couple of cities built marketplaces and my research time for Computers went from 5 turns to 2 turns! Just from a couple of markeplaces Don't underestimate the power of chee...marketplaces

Marketplaces shouldn't affect tech cost or time to research at all - did you adjust your science slider? And 2 markets certainly can't make that dramtic an impact on a very expensive modern age tech.

I suspect that an AI or two discovered / traded for Computers, reducing the research cost (which is the reason many research lengths drop dramtically during your efforts in a tight tech race). Are there AI civs that are competitive with you in research?

Catt

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by stonewall
1) I am getting more convinced that the best strategy is to use hospitals, but not necessarily everywhere. That is what I normally do, but thought I would try the no hospital thing.

2) Actually, in my current game I did start building some hospitals 'cause I was just getting whooped on. I just advanced a turn in that game and noticed a couple of cities built marketplaces and my research time for Computers went from 5 turns to 2 turns! Just from a couple of markeplaces Don't underestimate the power of chee...marketplaces

1) I generally aim for size 16-20 max. I'm trying this no hospitals thing, and to be honest, I'm not very good at it. It takes quite a few games to switch styles.

2) Techs get cheaper to research the more Civs that know them. If the number of turns to tech drops suddently, that's usually the reason why.

[stonewall]

Originally posted by Cruddy

2) Techs get cheaper to research the more Civs that know them. If the number of turns to tech drops suddently, that's usually the reason why.

Your right. I went back a turn to see what happend and in addition to those markeplaces, I also built a couple of librarys and one civ discovered computers.

Still, based on the discussion above, I think I have been discounting the value of the markeplace. Need to fix that...

[Cruddy]

Don't foget banks, stock exchanges (on PTW) and Adam Smith's. Check out the "Favourite Wonders" discussion - a lot of people really rate this one. Although Collossus does amazing things to the early game as well.

[stonewall]

I always build banks (eventually). Adam Smith's is usually my top priority in that era. I have always ignored Colussus and focused on G. Library and or Pyramids. I will have to give it more consideration in my next game.

[dexters]

If having no hospitals is advantageous, it wouldn't be in the game.

While having no hospitals mean your cities are less liable to get discontent and it may make your job easier when it comes to not purchasing luxuries, it also faces significant disadvantages

1) Spreading tile use between 2 cities whereas normally we would only have one city using the tiles are not equivalent. One of the cities will get slighty higher corruption, so you'd be losing production and commerce

2) loss of multiplier effects from wonders such as newtons, SETI, etc. These double your sciencerate. Having a size 12 city with this wonder isn't the same as having a size 12 city which you can grow into a size 25 city later on.

3) loss of multiplier effects for improvements.
As noted above, more cities = more corruption as you slowly move out. 2 cities tilling the same soil is not equal to one city doing it. 1 of the 2 cities will experience higher corruption, and those corrupted shield and commerce will cost you even more in loss marketplace, science multipliers

The no hospital strategy is, as I can see it, only advisable in small island continents where your goal is to spread out and work all the tiles as early as possible to keep pace with AI. In this case, hospitals can be traded off for a compact city placement as they come too late in the game to make a difference anyways.

The no hospital strat is definately not advisable in any continents pangea maps where your goal is to spread out as far as you can to cut off AI civs from grabbing land.

As I see it, you can get the city spacing down as much as you want, but if you're not expanding fast enough in the early game and miss a crucial luxury or resource, you might as well have played normally and grab the resource and luxury and deal with the discontent issues as they come up. Frankly, the strategy has a very limited use.

[bongo]

There have been a lot of talk about city placement strategies here. One that looked very tempting was to place your cities in a 4*5 pattern to allow them to reach max size. Before hospitals at least 7 tiles belonging to each city would not be worked, the trick was to place 'military camps' in between the future metropolis. Small towns that only make units and never grow bigger than size 6. When hospitals are built in the bigger cities these 'military camps' are disbanded. While this strategy sounds promising I havn't tried it out yet.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by stonewall

4) Marketplace - you could be right here. For the most part they came after the University. I am such a culture whore that I didn't build it early because it generates no culture.

After universities?
By then you should have completed banks, not marketplaces, and be on your way for stock exchanges (in PTW).
Who is going to pay for the upkeep of your temples, libraries, universities etc. and a fast research?

Ah! I got carried away. This thread was about hospitals, wasn't it?

[Arrian]

I think we've hammered home the importance of marketplaces, MS. Then again, it really can't be overstated.

-Arrian

[Cruddy]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by dexters
...The no hospital strategy is, as I can see it, only advisable in small island continents where your goal is ... [QUOTE]

Good post Dexter - I just have one major problem with it.

SMALL map? Isn't corruption distance LESS on small maps? Can't you have less corruption in the same area on bigger maps?

I would say the bigger the map, the bigger the advantage of size 12 cities for a bgger culture boost.

Or am I missing something?

[stonewall]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage


After universities?
By then you should have completed banks, not marketplaces, and be on your way for stock exchanges (in PTW).
Who is going to pay for the upkeep of your temples, libraries, universities etc. and a fast research?

Ah! I got carried away. This thread was about hospitals, wasn't it?

You are probably right. I think I developed tunnel vision and I was really focusing on building culture improvements before anything else. The library and university really became more of a priority in my current game as I fell behind on research - I never considered the effect on research that marketplaces and banks have

Its kinda funny how trying something new just threw my whole game off....

[dexters]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cruddy
[QUOTE] Originally posted by dexters
...The no hospital strategy is, as I can see it, only advisable in small island continents where your goal is ...

Good post Dexter - I just have one major problem with it.

SMALL map? Isn't corruption distance LESS on small maps? Can't you have less corruption in the same area on bigger maps?

I would say the bigger the map, the bigger the advantage of size 12 cities for a bgger culture boost.

Or am I missing something?

Ok, sorry.

Look what you quoted and read what you think I said.

I said it is worthwhile in small continent island maps (probably continents with lots of water), especially when you're cut off from a larger land mass.

I didn't mean small maps. Even if it is a smaller map, while corruption is less, your Optimal city is also less, and there's even less room to make a mistake. If you exapnd too slowly in the early game, there is usually no uncharted territory to expand into. I would argue the slow expansion strategy required by building a tight compact empire for the no hospital strategy to work will still against you.

The way I see it, a compact city placement is meant to maximize land usage in the early to mid game without waiting for cities to get hospitals. And You only really need to do that if space for expansion is limited and you need to get as much gold, production and research as possible to stay competitive against larger AI civs.

Otherwise, I see the strategy as a collosal waste of time and effort since expanding far and wide yield so much more. The extra luxuries you need to buy in the late game is inconsequential. In fact, if you expand quickly enough, you'll either capture extra luxuries or be in the position to take it by force. So the luxury saving argument doesn't work for me.

I mean no offense to the guy who thought of the idea. But i'm skeptical.

[stonewall]

Originally posted by dexters

I mean no offense to the guy who thought of the idea. But i'm skeptical.

I guess that would be me (And I take no offense)

You know, I am skeptical too - that is why I wanted to get other people's input. I only tried this on a whim for something different to do. My first game on a standard map using this method I won by conquest, but my current game on a huge map has been much more challenging. In fact, I abandoned "no hospitals" because I was getting in too much of a hole.

[Theseus]

Chiming in on marketplaces:

stonewall, what jumped out at me was your building of markets while researching Computers.

HOLY HAPPINESS, BATMAN!!!

How can you even THINK of hospitals when you haven't built markets yet??!! Sure, the income boost helps, but it's the happiness that really kicks in.

Markets and AS MANY LUXURIES AS POSSIBLE... don;t forget, this is Civ3, The Happiness Game.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by dexters
The way I see it, a compact city placement is meant to maximize land usage in the early to mid game without waiting for cities to get hospitals. And You only really need to do that if space for expansion is limited and you need to get as much gold, production and research as possible to stay competitive against larger AI civs.

The entire length of time before the arrival of Hospitals is the most important part of the game. If you're playing to win, you do not plan to wait for Hospitals in order to get big impressive cities. Instead, you really are trying to get as much Gold, Production and Research as possible, in order to turn get an advantage and keep it.

The strategy then is to build up a compact and efficient core of cities, which suffers little from Corruption and maximises the use of land around the starting location (among other things, like making micromanagement more effective). This will translate into the tools necessary to either 1) expand into more land if it is available, 2) produce military units to conquer said land. The AI makes so little use of the land it gobbles up that your empire can be half as big as the leading civ's in terms of Land Area, yet you're clearly the dominant force. If this has never happened to you, I suggest you try tight (3-tile) placement, and let me know how your games go.

Otherwise, I see the strategy as a collosal waste of time and effort since expanding far and wide yield so much more. The extra luxuries you need to buy in the late game is inconsequential. In fact, if you expand quickly enough, you'll either capture extra luxuries or be in the position to take it by force. So the luxury saving argument doesn't work for me.

The Luxury argument is actually for your position (loose city-spacing), but unfortunately it does not hold water. As stated above, with tight spacing you'll be in better shape to acquire those Luxuries later on (either by trade, force or expansion). There is nothing preventing you from building a nice tight core, then spreading a little thinner outside of this in order to claim Resources and/or Luxuries.

I mean no offense to the guy who thought of the idea. But I'm skeptical.

Try tight-spacing, and your skepticism will go away, I promise.


Dominae


P.S: Marketplaces rule.