Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

City Placement Scenario

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

  • vmxa1
    replied
    I would like to see one of your well written reports, so now that I warned you please jump in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    Originally posted by vmxa1
    Just a warning Zen, this is a 250x250 map with 24 civs. More than just a huge map. I have already seen 90 second turns on 3.06GH Pentium.


    well, I'll think about it, hopefully I'll have a little time next week and I might give it a try...

    Leave a comment:


  • vmxa1
    replied
    Just a warning Zen, this is a 250x250 map with 24 civs. More than just a huge map. I have already seen 90 second turns on 3.06GH Pentium.

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    Originally posted by Dominae

    On Emperor you can always reach military parity with almost any neighbor relatively early if only you expand fast enough. Archer rushes 20 turns into the game and 40 turns into the game are essentially equivalent if done properly.

    On Deity you basically have no hope of rushing your average neighbor due to all the AI's bonus military units (not to mention the extra Settler). In my experience, successful early rushes by the human player on Deity are mostly flukes and do not represent typical games on that difficulty level. Therefore the only way to ensure the neighbors do not get too close is by expanding as quickly as possible.
    You can also reach military parity by kicking your neighbor's ass early on. In my experience with Deity, it is not you who does the rushing, but the AI which frecuently sends a spearman and some warriors at you very quickly. It's especially nasty when the Greeks do it, as they love to send hoplites to pillage you're dreadfully important improved squares. Thus, on deity a quick early city producing units helps for defense as you can put some spearmen on those tiles to force the AI to attack you and lose when it does. This strategy is the only one i've found effective against a civ like Greece against who you have no chance of defeating Hoplites which enter your tiles. After a few turns they'll lose some units and you can sue for peace.

    I do see that we have very distinct styles of playing our early game but frankly I think both our styles are effective, at least mine has worked very well for me so far. As you can also probably guess why I'm in GoW and not Lego...

    In both cases you'll notice that bonus Food is better than Shields, because growth and expansion is pivotal.
    I still don't see why that extra food on a plain is just so overwhelmingly vital instead of a city with abundant bonus grasslands. If that food had been on a grassland perhaps, but on a plain it would only net you 3 food (I assume you are talking about the wheat near #10) If you are talking about the wheat near the capital, that's for the capital, which it would spare it with another city only on the last turn so as to not waste foods.


    This exercise is currently being done in AU402, where players are encouraged to write a report of their first 40 turns (and the 40 turns after that). I'm hoping this sort of discussion would migrate toward that thread, since it's a real-game example. And let me assure you right now, it's much more of an "interesting" map in terms of city placement, if you know what I mean...

    Dominae
    Hmm... I suddenly feel tempted to try it out, if only for the first 80 turns. Sadly my PC is in no shape to play an entire huge map game with the little time I have to play civ right now, but I guess I'll give the start a try

    Leave a comment:


  • GhengisFarb™
    replied
    My strategy for SP vs MP games varies greatly, on an SP I am not so concerned with efficient placement as with having fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dominae
    replied
    Originally posted by Master Zen
    Now, I totally agree that in the long run it might not have been as efficient as getting the wheat, but frankly a strong ultra-ultra early start is very important in SP where on emperor and deity you simply cannot afford to have a neighbor too close.
    On Emperor you can always reach military parity with almost any neighbor relatively early if only you expand fast enough. Archer rushes 20 turns into the game and 40 turns into the game are essentially equivalent if done properly.

    On Deity you basically have no hope of rushing your average neighbor due to all the AI's bonus military units (not to mention the extra Settler). In my experience, successful early rushes by the human player on Deity are mostly flukes and do not represent typical games on that difficulty level. Therefore the only way to ensure the neighbors do not get too close is by expanding as quickly as possible.

    In both cases you'll notice that bonus Food is better than Shields, because growth and expansion is pivotal.

    What would be fun would be to select a civ and then ask people to choose their placement.
    This exercise is currently being done in AU402, where players are encouraged to write a report of their first 40 turns (and the 40 turns after that). I'm hoping this sort of discussion would migrate toward that thread, since it's a real-game example. And let me assure you right now, it's much more of an "interesting" map in terms of city placement, if you know what I mean...


    Dominae

    Leave a comment:


  • Dominae
    replied
    Originally posted by GhengisFarb
    Out of 177 tiles covered by the central city and the secondary ring of eight cities, only four tiles cannot be utilized once the four camps are abandoned. At that point I am only utilizing 173 out of 177 tiles.
    That's post-Sanitation, of course. Do you only disband your camps once you reach Sanitation? And do they get any improvements other than Barracks before they get disbanded? If you disband your camps before Sanitation, you suddenly have many tiles going unused, and if not you're going to run into problems with those camps unless you build improvements in them (or just take it for granted that you'll have enough Luxuries). The way I see camps work the best is if you disband them sometime in the early Medieval.

    Also, let me point out that those 4 unused tiles are at the core of your empire, and that's an unecessary waste of low-Corruption real-estate.

    In general, I'm not saying your camp strategy is hopelessly flawed. What I am saying is that restricting yourself to that pattern will not help you in many games where the "lay of the land" is not condusive to it. I see camps more as a opportunities rather than mainstays of my economic plan.


    Dominae

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    Originally posted by vmxa1
    I am enjoying this whole thread, but how often do you find yourself in game where you can use it. I would think some std maps maybe and any larger one should present a few chances, but any smaller ones probably won't.
    So my question to those that have been using one form or the other of OCP or RCP is do you get to use it often or not?
    Haven't tried RCP as I only saw the thread yesterday, OCP is definitely a no-no in my book, usually you end up compromising. Most maps never allow you to perform a textbook plan of any city placement scheme.

    I once came close to performing a perfect Ralphing in a huge map... I'll see if I can dig out that save...

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    Originally posted by Dominae

    Your site #3 looks better for this purpose (access to Bonus Grasslands, Silk Forest to chop, low Corruption). Even if it's to be a temporary city, there's no real harm in building a Barracks there, since it will be "temporary" for a long time (i.e. long enough for the Barracks to pay off).
    Unless I'm looking at the map wrong, #3 would only have immediate access to 1 bonus grassland the one 9 of #1 but which would be in use by the capital. The only way #3 would net bonus grasslands would be with a temple but it'd much rather get a barracks than a temple early especially since #3 is a camp city. In fact, the priority in that city would of course be the barracks, if I had cranked some units from #2 already and were militaristic, I'd even build the barracks first.

    On the other hand once #2 is built and then #3, the border would squeeze in and grab those two bonus grasslands in the middle (remember that even in 4-tile the bordres merge). Thus a combination of cities #1-2-3 would net me 7 bonus grasslands.

    Now, I totally agree that in the long run it might not have been as efficient as getting the wheat, but frankly a strong ultra-ultra early start is very important in SP where on emperor and deity you simply cannot afford to have a neighbor too close. Now, also notice that #2 in fact does have a wheat tile in its radius if you build a temple or some other cultural improvement in it, thus #2 can serve as a settler pump too early on, especailyl if you are religious.


    How would you place your cities if this were a SP game?

    Dominae
    In a SP I might be less inclined to 3-tile my outer borders since I don't really fear a precise invasion (mind you I fear invasion but not in the way a MP opponent would do it which is pretty much the incentive to 3-tile in MP)

    Thus, i'd probably build #7 at 9 of its location so it could be coastal, i'd do the same to #6, moving it 9 too. In this scenario moving #10 to 9 would also be usufull, it could net the extra wheat and leave crappy #4 as a military city (and drunken capital thanks to those wines ).

    Why I wouldn't move #10 originally? Because by moving it I'd upset the delicate balance of 3-tile outer spacing since I'd have to move #6. Now, you might say, moving #6 at 9 would still leave it at 3-tile to 11 BUT, there's a flaw in the defenses, as an attacker could move from the two forests downwards with their stack out of the reach of city-safe counterattack. This might be solved by turning #6 into a military camp too. If I were a commercial civ then low corruption might make it feasable and would agree to doing it. If not, I'd rather keep my military camps close.

    BTW, I understand there's always an exception to every rule in the sense that this placement would not be ideal under all cirumstances, if you were military then you'd change this, if commercial... you see what I'm getting at. It's hard to truly find an ideal placement scheme until you are actully on that map and knowing what civ you are and on what difficulty level and who you find in your borders. Having said that, the placement I proposed was IMO the best "average" one which came to my head at the moment without taking those specifics into consideration.

    What would be fun would be to select a civ and then ask people to choose their placement

    Leave a comment:


  • vmxa1
    replied
    I am enjoying this whole thread, but how often do you find yourself in game where you can use it. I would think some std maps maybe and any larger one should present a few chances, but any smaller ones probably won't.
    So my question to those that have been using one form or the other of OCP or RCP is do you get to use it often or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • GhengisFarb™
    replied
    Originally posted by Dominae
    You've still not addressed the fact that you're not utilizing many tiles around your core once you disband your camps. That's not really good long-term usage, either.
    I haven't addressed it as your definition of "many" and my definition of "many" appear to be slightly different. Out of 177 tiles covered by the central city and the secondary ring of eight cities, only four tiles cannot be utilized once the four camps are abandoned. At that point I am only utilizing 173 out of 177 tiles. True, the fact that I am only operating at a 97.74% utilization rate is somewhat irritating, but I am only using 9 total cities to do so, whereas many other players would have to be utilizing 10-15 cities to use the same number of tiles.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveMcW
    replied
    I agree, I always make sure bonus food is in my 9-tile radius. And sites with bonus food are settled first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dominae
    replied
    I'm not sure why your size 7-12 cities are better under your system. Is it because of the lowered Corruption of having your camps each at distance 2 from the capital? But then that's not really a long-term benefit, as you plan to disband your camps at some point.

    You've still not addressed the fact that you're not utilizing many tiles around your core once you disband your camps. That's not really good long-term usage, either.

    If you place your 4 camp cities before outer ring, and assuming that the map is such that your 4 camps do not have access to a bonus Food but your outer ring does, then you're losing out on much much more than 10-18 turns of bonus Food production.

    Accessing the bonus Food tiles early is not "short-term gain", but rather the best kind of investment you can make early on to support your choices in the long run.

    It would be interesting but boringly complicated to run tests to determine if the benefits of prioritizing Food tiles is better or worse than minimizing Corruption by using the pattern you're proposing. I could very well be wrong, but my gut instinct tells me that extra Food will almost always prevail (barring any Flood Plain silliness). This is especially true if you're playing an Industrious civ, in which case: extra Food = extra Industrious Workers = more tile improvements = laugh in the face of Corruption.


    Dominae

    Leave a comment:


  • GhengisFarb™
    replied
    Originally posted by Dominae
    GhengisFarb, with that setup I see no reason to ever disband the camps. Why restrict yourself to such a layout instead of just placing cities closer together at good city-states to begin with?

    In this map, it turns out that your initial four camps around the capital are very well-placed with respect to good tiles (especially bonus Food). But in other maps (like your example in the other thread), this will not be the case.

    Note that if ever you disband the camps, the tiles immediately underneath them will never be accessible by any city.


    Dominae
    The primary difference in our strategies from what I have observed is that your placement is based on short term or immediate use, while my placement is based on long term or the tile usage of the citysites later in the game.

    I prefer to place my cites where they will minimize corruption and maximize tile usage later down the road when they are size 7-12 cities than to sacrifice that effectiveness to gain a Wheat resource immediately rather than to simply have access to it in another 10-18 turns.

    While I lose out on those 10-18 turns of bonus production (+1-2 food under Despotism) I gain far more (1-2 shields and 1-2 commerce under Despotism or an even greater benefit assuming I decide not to play under Despotism for the entire game) once the city's radius expands.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dominae
    replied
    GhengisFarb, with that setup I see no reason to ever disband the camps. Why restrict yourself to such a layout instead of just placing cities closer together at good city-states to begin with?

    In this map, it turns out that your initial four camps around the capital are very well-placed with respect to good tiles (especially bonus Food). But in other maps (like your example in the other thread), this will not be the case.

    Note that if ever you disband the camps, the tiles immediately underneath them will never be accessible by any city.


    Dominae

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X