The Wisdom Of No Hospitals

[dexters]

I have tried tight spacing, AFTER I build my cities as far apart as possible. I go back in and fill in my core areas with more cities to maximize production.

This however doesn't make the argument AGAINST hospitals.

And yes, my argument with regards to luxury was that if you expand far and wide, you get more luxuries and strategic resources under your control. That is the argument I AM MAKING. This nullifies to some extent, concern that having large cities will cost you in the late game because of the need to acquire more resources. I mean, if you plan ahead to begin with, you'd grab those resources, instead of diddlying in your little corner getting that spacing just right. It's a waste of time.

As you've so eloquently noted, the time before hospitals is most important. So I fail to see why having to deal with discontentment after hospitals is such an issue.

If you have exapnd quickly enough and far enough, your empire will be quite formidable and there stands a good chance of eithing having enough luxuries or being able to take them for force.

Tight spacing in the early game slows down expansion. It's suicide to get a perfect tightly spaced empire in a corner of the cotninent if you can Rex out and cut off your enemy's expansion. You can pop out settlers later to fill in low curroption eras where tighter spacing may yield higher initial production.

That said, you still fail to consider the costs of spacing tightly in terms of settlers needed, and the corruption costs faced when two cities till the same soil instead of 1. One of the two cities will get higher corruption. It always happens. And you loose even more in terms of multiplier effects of improvement and wonders. A city that can till all the squares around it with a Newtons, Seti, library, bank, market, exchange, will is far more productive, even before hospitals that one that might have to share with another city.

There are trade offs in terms of growth tiles. Two cities might have to share high food producing tiles, slowing down both their growth rates. There are so many anciallry costs that you have not considered. It's a cost if your high science and tax core cities hit size 12 several turns late because they don't have enough growth tiles to get them there fast enough. And with the multiplier effects of libraries, univ, market and banks, it could well add up to a tech lead. It's hard to quantify when you are using the strategy, but if you step back, it's yet another trade off you are ignoring. The fact that core cities can be more tightly packed with overlapping tiles is fine by me. I always play like that. But a whole game built on no hospitals, tight spacing, is rather idiotic.

Just my thoughts

[Theseus]

I agree with you, dex, but for somewhat different reasons.

Tight tile spacing prior to hospitals has one un-frigging-believably HUGE advantage that you ignore: sharing of high value tiles. My objective in the early and mid-game is to *maximize* the utilization of these treasures... thus, they need to be shared while I'm building settlers and workers. In fact, managed properly, you will produce dramatically more food and shields this way, thus addressing the ability to REX across the same if not more territory.

That said, I entirely agree with your last statement... certain sites deserve, nay, NEED to become huge metropolises.

Thus?

Ralphing.

I'm still not great at it, but it addresses just about every pro / con argument in this thread, whether re city placement, hospitals, or even building marketplaces ( ), as superior production supports faster building... of everything.

(SSSSSHHHHH, chattering nabobs... yes, ralphing in the context of territory, neighbors, etc. )

[Dominae]

Tight spacing in the early game slows down expansion. It's suicide to get a perfect tightly spaced empire in a corner of the cotninent if you can Rex out and cut off your enemy's expansion. You can pop out settlers later to fill in low curroption eras where tighter spacing may yield higher initial production.

In the early-game, "distance from the capital" Corruption is far more important than "number of cities" Corruption. Furthermore, everything is accomplished quicker with a tight-knit core, because you need fewer Roads to connect your cities, and transit time for Settlers and Workers is reduced. Thus, by the strength of your economy alone, your expansion is actually not slowed down at all (especially if you're blessed with a starting spot amenable to a Granary). I routinely out-expand the AI on Emperor (sometimes Deity), and I use very tight spacing.

A city that can till all the squares around it with a Newtons, Seti, library, bank, market, exchange, will is far more productive, even before hospitals that one that might have to share with another city.

Cities can only work 12 tiles before Hospitals. A 3-tile tight spacing, given average terrain, should allow all your cities to naturally max out in pop at size 12. Therefore you know you're getting your "land's worth" before Hospitals. Admittedly, once you get to Hospitals it is more efficient to have a sparser spacing, since you save on upkeep costs. But in my experience the power of tight spacing for the whole time before Sanitation more than offsets the minor setback you run into in the latter part of the game.

There are trade offs in terms of growth tiles. Two cities might have to share high food producing tiles, slowing down both their growth rates.

Actually, sometimes it is best if two cities have access to the same tile, to avoid waste (this involves a bit of micromanagement).

There are so many anciallry costs that you have not considered.

Actually, I've put considerable thought into it (for a game).

It's a cost if your high science and tax core cities hit size 12 several turns late because they don't have enough growth tiles to get them there fast enough.

My strategy is not to fill up land in a specifc pattern blindly. Rather, it is to make best use of the available land, and for my cities to max out in population at size 12. Clearly if an area has a large number of Hills I may employ a wider spacing, since a city's growth will be restricted in that area. But, given a fair number of tiles that can produce 2 Food (including Coasts), I typically space them 3 tiles apart.

But a whole game built on no hospitals, tight spacing, is rather idiotic.

Such harsh language over such a little thing! Once Hospitals come around and Railroads are built, I then revaluate the need for Hospitals; if the land can support larger cities, then I'll consider a Hospital in those settlements. The point that I'm arguing against is not that Hospitals are always useless, rather that it is a good idea to make out the pop of your cities at size 12, since the part of the game before Hospitals is far more critical than that part of the game after them, and the expansion phase is the most crucial of all. Usually, with Hospitals, a city will only grow another couple of pop points (to size 15 or 16) before the land cannot support anymore citizens, which leads me to think that Hospitals really are not that critical after all. Apart from upkeep costs, 5 cities at size 20 is not that much better than 8 cities at size 14, since each can produce that same number of military units (actually, the 8 cities can produce more).

Anyway, this discussion is revolving around two related but seperate points, which is causing some confusion:

1. City-spacing during expansion
2. The usefulness of Hospitals

I believe that if we disentangle these issues we'll make a lot more progress.


Dominae

[Nor Me]

I think that some Hospitals are a good idea even with unplanned (for hospitals) 3-spacing.
Switching tiles from outer cities to core cities reduces corruption. Diversifying cities is also good. Although you spend shields on hospitals and cathedrals that is often offset by improvements you don't have to build in cities that are now smaller. If you can actually disband cities which only have few unshared tiles, you save from essential improvements like factories too.

On the city-spacing threadjack, I've began to change my position. When I first switched to tight city spacing my games were much better. But now I've stopped doing it sometimes, I seem to have improved even more.
In general, Because the corruption-reducing effect of closer cities is so much better in despotism, you only really want the first ring of cities round your capital closely spaced.

[stonewall]

Originally posted by 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.

Yea, this has been a weird game all around

Actually, I always build marketplaces before hospitals. As far as building marketplaces while researching computers, these are in some new / conquered cities.

And how about this: when i built the Cure for Cancer - it triggered my Golden Age !! Wow, what an effect on a large empire in the modern age

Just for clarification, when you guys say 3 tile spacing, do you mean 3 tiles between each city?

[BRC]

Just for clarification, when you guys say 3 tile spacing, do you mean 3 tiles between each city?

No. City-tile-tile-city. Try it. You'll like it.

[Capt Dizle]

Clearly in my mind the optimal approach is to lay out towns in such a manner as to be able to use all tiles in the core area very early in the game.

I generally build out in such as way as to allow certain cities to have a full 21 tile layout in the endgame, in these cities I normally build all multiplier improvements. Some of the other cities are going to be used only for military and support (workers, settlers). These get few improvements like a barracks or a granary if I don't have the Pyramids.

The advantage is that you don't have to spend shields building as many city improvements; the downsize is that you will have less commerce in the mid game than you would have with the multipliers covering all core tiles.

But its all good.

The facilities you don't want to build, unless you are going for culture, are temples, cathedrals and coliseums.

[bongo]

jimmytrick , that sounds like 'ralphing'.

If you haven't read i already take a look on this thread. Interesting stuff

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77451

[Chemical Ollie]

I quite often skip building hospitals for several reasons. I haven't read all posts here in detail, so most have probably been said, but anyway:

1) Happiness, especially during war.
If you missed any of the middle age happiness wonders, industrial wars could be really painful and totally stop your research due to weariness. Size 12 cities are normally possible to control with regular happiness improvements, while the huge cities need wonders.

2) Pollution. Yuk!
If you don't have an industrious tribe, it will take forever to clean the mess up. Especially for those laze slaves you took from your neighbours.
3) Tech race.
If you are in a tight tech race with the AI, spending 4 or more turns on getting sanitation when you really need scientific method or replacable parts could be a bad idea.

Still I find myself building hospitals quite often. You get plenty of extra money that could be useful in the modern age and more citizens to add to your final score. Only recently have I learned to pack my cities closer with the plan to skip hospitals in the late game.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by bongo
jimmytrick , that sounds like 'ralphing'.

Yeah, I was ralphing before it was named ralphing. I just do it in a little different way. There is no perfect pattern or playstyle but it does help to have a concept of what you are trying to do.