The Yang Model - With Culture!

[Nakar Gabab]

Re: How could they forget?

Originally posted by gopher
The Yang method is missing one very important factor to work as well in Civ3 than SMAC. That would be the almighty BOREHOLE . With that, production could support an adequete defence force.
In Civ3, your Culture might be powerful (that infastructure costs, along with small production can lead to disaster), but the territory would be small. Luxs are not a problem, since you got HapProd from the culture buildings, but good luck getting Oil or Rubber.

But hey, we learn by experimentation (After we discover the Scientific Method, that is), so try it out!

Good point. No boreholes make production a bit of a trouble... but that's what pop-rush unit factories are for. Sure, there's no boreholes, but even Yang couldn't whip his people into building that big defense force in a few turns...

...and hey, that might work, too. If a city gets just a bit too unhappy from the pop-rushing, simply disband it and send a settler to the exact same site, building a 'real' city there (again, this goes against building lots of culture, but you don't need TOO many unit factories, and you ought to have enough cities to compensate, perhaps). Your other cities will easily absorb the area left behind, so the AI has no chance to settle there before you can - plus all the improvements, roads, etc. are in place to start with.

[gopher]

Re: Re: How could they forget?

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab


Good point. No boreholes make production a bit of a trouble... but that's what pop-rush unit factories are for. Sure, there's no boreholes, but even Yang couldn't whip his people into building that big defense force in a few turns...

...and hey, that might work, too. If a city gets just a bit too unhappy from the pop-rushing, simply disband it and send a settler to the exact same site, building a 'real' city there (again, this goes against building lots of culture, but you don't need TOO many unit factories, and you ought to have enough cities to compensate, perhaps). Your other cities will easily absorb the area left behind, so the AI has no chance to settle there before you can - plus all the improvements, roads, etc. are in place to start with.

Very true, but I find that disbanding cities is not only VERY annoying, but also long and expensive process. Besides, then you have to build a Temple again and again and again.

[mengo76]

RPM:

Aeson is right, the best pattern with the least overlap and no wasted squares is what i call the "19" pattern (city can grow to size 19 without having to make citizens specialists, whereas aeson calls it 20 because there are 20 map squares used up by the city).

As for patterns where each city uses up 21 squares -- "20" in my system -- you can find 2 patterns in my gif: "20-2" wastes 2 squares per city, "20-4" wastes 4 per city. In the gif the wasted spaces are color coded because you can put in "filler cities" in the nooks and crannies that can keep prducing workers or whatever.

Problem with adding these "filler cities" is that if you have more than the "optimal" number of cities, adding a filler city near your capital will make one "good" city further away become totally corrupt (or so I theorize, I haven't tested this).

[Spaced Cowboy]

It is weird that I have been using 19 naturally without really doing the drawings to see what was most effective. I'm doing a lot of ICS right now in my current game (tourney #4) to see if that has an effect. I spank out a new unit everytime a city goes to pop2. I just let my core cities around my cap get a little bigger like size 6.