City placement redux (for the third time)

[Konquest02]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I just had an interesting thought: why not make some experimentation with city spacing a part of Apolyton University? We could either have different people volunteer to try specific city patterns in AU 206 (and encourage replays with alternative city spacings to see how they change things) or have a series of two or three AU games each focusing on a specific city build pattern. A maximum-land pangea map with the player starting a bit away from the coast would probably be ideal for this type of experimentation.

Nathan

Originally posted by Dominae
What would be required to show me that a particular pattern is better than others is many successful games across multiple map types.

This could be a nice topic for AU 206. We would then have multiple games (although all on the same map...) and we could experiment on city placement. I'm pretty sure all people will not "ralph" the same way so we would get to compare...

I may set this one up, so give me a call when you are ready! (if you want to! )

--Kon--

[Konquest02]

I think ralphing disadvantages religious civs as your cities do not get as big and require less happiness buildings. Since cathedrals are cheaper for religious civs, they would be able to maintain huge cities happy more easily.

[Dominae]

Re: big cities (size 14+).

Production-wise, I'm not convinced, as you can always create bigger cities my giving them more than their share of tiles (I actually do this). This is easily done by irrigating some other tiles in case there is a lack of Food. Rarely do you need to produce more than 3 SS parts at a time (less for Wonders), in which case it doe not really matter how productive the other cities are (it's their Commerce that matters at that point in the game).

Regarding upkeep costs, that is definitely a good point. Not enough to get me to disband some of my 3-spacing cities, but important nonetheless.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Kon, isn't that backwards? The whole point IS to have larger cities and metros as you progress through the game.

The traits that get the biggest bang for the long-term buck will be REL and COM in terms of city performance, and IND in terms of empire performance.

Short term, MIL is rewarded, as this starts as an ICS strategy.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Dominae

Again, I think the temporary camp idea is good, but it's use and exact placement of cities depends a lot of the terrain available. That's why I'm not sure this revolution is all that revolutionary (sorry for being the spoilsport).

What would be required to show me that a particular pattern is better than others is many successful games across multiple map types.

It's true that the land available makes a difference in what spacing you'll use. But I think most of the time I find myself on a continent with lots of space and little time to REX. Using OCN, if I'm lucky I'll get to start the 2nd Ring, but usually I get one ring and then have to decide who to declare war on if I want to expand. I used OCN my first time on AU105/201 and it's true I got a little more land then using the 3-Tile or camp systems, but I was also playing Regent at the time.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems the amount of land you settle before war factors more around how you keep the AI away from settleable land rather than the spacing of your settling.

I don't know about the rest of you, but once I'm done REXing, I just take the AIs cities, I don't bother to raze or disband them and waste my time resettling cities to fit my paradigm.

So when I play, the real question becomes how do I gain the most of my surrounding terrain before I run out of space. Ralphing seems to be a good option, but I was wondering if you could get away with having fewer camps and keep the early 3-Tile effect. I might more prefer a system more like this:

. . . . O . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
O . . . . . . . .
. . . C . . . . O
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . O . . . .
. . . . . . . C .
O . C . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . O
. . . . O . . . .

Each Core cite (O) is connected to the 6 in it's ring by 3 camp sites which get disbanded later. It's a little looser than 3-Tile, since only 3 cities instead of 4 are connected for quick defense but it's still flexible.

And one thing else I like about Ralphing when I tried it was the ability to fudge on camp sites. Though Ralph gave a concrete tessellation plan, we know from experience that given mountains and coast, you can't follow it exactly, and knowing that camp sites are temporary gave me the ability to move them one tile NW,SW,NE, or SE without hurting the grand idea behind the scheme of the placement.

edit: made layout easier to read

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by BRC

Wonders also (I know, similiar to SS parts).

In my current game, I just don't feel like my empire is as powerful as it used to be. I know that the tight spacing is what let me get to my current position (own the whole continent, 50% of world), but, at the middle of the Industrial Era, I think its starting to hold me back now.

These are two problems I encounter in almost every game. This is why I want to drop a few cities in the industrial era.

[Konquest02]

Maybe I wasn't clear...

Goes back and reads himself
I definetly wan't clear... In fact, I got it backwards...

What I was trying to say is that the advantage a civ gets from ralphing in terms of easiness to manage cities is less important for religious civs than for everybody else...

Vs. 3-tile spacing, ralphing tends to yield bigger cities at the end of the line. A bigger city is harder to keep happy and in WLTKD. It is easier for a religious civ to maintain big cities. Therefore, it is easier to ralph with a religious civ than a non-religious one.

I see that I am contradicting myself, but I think I am right this time around.

--Kon--

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Dominae
Re: big cities (size 14+).

Rarely do you need to produce more than 3 SS parts at a time (less for Wonders)

Dominae

But here is why I don't need to drop cities.

Do my usual tight Palace core and use the AI's looser spacing for the FP core.

[badams52]

Originally posted by BRC


Wonders also (I know, similiar to SS parts). I haven't done tests, but it seems logical to me that you would rather have the least number of cities working the most tiles, for the purpose of less corruption.

That reminds me, while Ralphing, I found it harder to build the early wonders. Less shields per city and the need to build more settlers used up more resources than 3-Tile.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by badams52
That reminds me, while Ralphing...Less shields per city and the need to build more settlers used up more resources than 3-Tile.

I believe this is critical. Some testing will decide the issue (in my mind, at least).


Dominae

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by badams52


That reminds me, while Ralphing, I found it harder to build the early wonders. Less shields per city and the need to build more settlers used up more resources than 3-Tile.

This is what struck me. Burning up settlers early is not free. In a smaller map where the civs are going to be on me soon, I can see the benefits of being able to crank out troops, but if I am not going to be pressed early, will I be better off?
That chart that was put and every one said yes that shows 3 tile as weaker, did not show that to me.
I thought I saw the numbers as being very close and the 3 tile was going to out do the other from that point forward, as it will not be disbanding anything and many of the cities have structural improvemnts in place.

[badams52]

After playing both, ralphing seemed to me to be a great warmonger's strat, notice having more units while 3-tile would be better for the builder.

I was surprised that each ended up with the exact same income from cities. I was able to lower the science rate in 3-tile and keep the same science since I had one library in Thebes at the time, but the extra amount got eaten up with all the temple improvements (I love early temples with a religious civ).

[BRC]

Originally posted by vmxa1

This is what struck me. Burning up settlers early is not free. In a smaller map where the civs are going to be on me soon, I can see the benefits of being able to crank out troops, but if I am not going to be pressed early, will I be better off?
That chart that was put and every one said yes that shows 3 tile as weaker, did not show that to me.
I thought I saw the numbers as being very close and the 3 tile was going to out do the other from that point forward, as it will not be disbanding anything and many of the cities have structural improvemnts in place.

I got the impression that 3 tile would slightly pull away from Ralphing, but that when you hit the Industrial Era, Ralphing would come on stronger. The question becomes, Is it worth it??

However, with Ralphing, you are storing up population at the cost of shields and commerce. However, this population (assuming decent terrain) will grow faster which may translate into higher production and commerce later.

[Theseus]

As experimentation takes place, we will start to see what does and does not work in practical application, including terrain effects and city build order.

As much as I've been cheerleading this concept, I worry about the opportunity cost of using Settlers this way.

But the power is there... going way back, this changes "the care and feeding of neighbors" and extends to "fun and games with modern armor."

Ohhhh yeah.

[BRC]

As much as I've been cheerleading this concept, I worry about the opportunity cost of using Settlers this way.

That is the only thing that bothers me too. I'm hoping that the inclusion of 2 tile spacing (which is new to me) with a couple of cities helps make up for the population transfer. However, as each town grows, shouldn't the payoff be greater later(in total # of population points)? Also, does this push back an early offensive?