BRC's game

[BRC]

Then you can teach me a thing or two (I've definitely still got a bunch to learn...I thought I had this game down pat before the summer, and boy was I wrong!).

To be fair, you have to unlearn some things. I don't. The patches changed a few things from what I hear. All I've had to deal with is 1.29 and 1.14.

[vmxa1]

Fighting is a state of mind to me. I mean I mostly played a warmonger style, especially before PTW and at Monarch. Before PTW, at deity, it was possible to rush some civs early after 129 and PTW, it got a bit harder and more dangerous IMO. I got burned out on the warring and played some peaceful until force for a time, just to do it.
I agree with Dom that you can play any style if you are wise with you management.
PTW tossed in a new wrinkle with the increased chance of getting a settler early. On games where I held off on starting that first settler and got one for my trouble out of a hut, EMP plays just like Monarch with a good start location. That is I can get the tech lead early and run away with the game. If I do not get that settler and have a less than optimal start, I can forget most early wonders and can start digging out of my hole.
So what I would do on research changes with the game.
If I am in a spot where I am way behind, I will look to get something that can be used for trade.
There are some good threads out there on the concept of the value of skipping some here to fore sancrosact techs, such as Chiv and Nationalism. I think Zachriel was the one that finally made me see that point. I always though I have to have these two or die.
Considerations of things like am I a Sci race? If so skipping some of the techs that are not required to get to the next age can be very useful.
One other point that is very often debated, so my view is just my view, but I never spend time researching Monarchy nor do I switch to it. It slows you down from getting out of the age and if you are not religous you can not afford to switch govs more than once. Egro, I jump on republic as it can be used all the way. Yes there are others that can be beneficial, but I can not afford to be switching.
In short there are no real cookie cutter reciepes as games and settings are fluid.
I also agree with DOM, that you are doing fine.
Most of the advice you get is just like a piece of a puzzle. You try to see if it fits and if does, use it, if not it made you think.

[BRC]

In short there are no real cookie cutter reciepes as games and settings are fluid.

It would be boring if there were. Thanks for all the help. I think I'm just gonna play a few games and see what works for me.

You try to see if it fits and if does, use it, if not it made you think.

I'm doing a lot of thinking. Thanks.

[Konquest02]

City Spacing

I have taken the "City Spacing Challenge" you posted a while ago. Here are where I would put my cities. I think almost everyone should do the same exercise, at it forces you to think about city placement and spacing, not just acting in a mechanical kind of way...

DISCLAIMER: This assumes perfect knowledge of the map, and actual in-game city placement might not look exactly like this. This is only theoretical...

Compare, share, discuss as much as you want...!

--Kon--

[BRC]

Re: City Spacing

Originally posted by Konquest02
I have taken the "City Spacing Challenge" you posted a while ago. Here are where I would put my cities. I think almost everyone should do the same exercise, at it forces you to think about city placement and spacing, not just acting in a mechanical kind of way...

DISCLAIMER: This assumes perfect knowledge of the map, and actual in-game city placement might not look exactly like this. This is only theoretical...

Compare, share, discuss as much as you want...!

--Kon--

Thanks. I am always wanting help. What do you (and Dom) look for in new city sites? As you probably have heard, I have hardly any overlap, and build in a pattern for the most part. I try to fill up the maximum amount of land with the least amount of cities (for the most part)? i.e. 4 tiles between cities.

I would really like to try a game with tighter spacing, but when I look for available sites, I'm always looking far away. I can't really recognize good sites for cities that are going to overlap with others. Any help is appreciated. Let me know what you think, and if you know any way to solve my affliction. Thanks.

[ducki]

The way I got over this was twofold.
1. Lie to yourself - tell yourself that some of these early "tight" towns are temporary and you'll abandon them later. You don't have to completely believe yourself, just enough to pretend it's "true".

2. Make it a game rule, like the AU203's No War Pre-Communism. Force yourself to plant your first 4 towns such that a defender can travel by road from one town to the next in a single turn. That means City-Road-Road-City.
Tip: If you do this diagonally, you have less overlap.

[BRC]

The way I got over this was twofold.
1. Lie to yourself - tell yourself that some of these early "tight" towns are temporary and you'll abandon them later. You don't have to completely believe yourself, just enough to pretend it's "true".

I do like the idea of temporary cities.

2. Make it a game rule, like the AU203's No War Pre-Communism. Force yourself to plant your first 4 towns such that a defender can travel by road from one town to the next in a single turn. That means City-Road-Road-City.

I think that I could do this, but I still don't know what I should look for when placing the city. Maybe I like having a "pattern" because I don't have to make such crucial ( ) decisions.

Tip: If you do this diagonally, you have less overlap.

Thank you Ducki. I feel better about doing this already.

Again, thanks.

[Dominae]

BRC, here are some things I consider when placing cities:

1. Best use of best land

In your game I mentioned that fact that many of your cities were not close to fresh water. I always put as many cities as I can justify next to fresh water sources (Rivers mostly, since putting two cities around a 1-tile lake is pushing it, IMO).

But the above consideration applies to all special terrain features. Basically, every new city should exploit some bonus feature or another, immediately. If a Luxury is going to be within a city's borders once they expand (after a Temple and 5 turns), that is not good enough. Make sure that Luxury can be exploited right away.

I used the example of Luxuries, but in the early game the two critical features are Rivers and bonus Food tiles. Pack as many cities as you can around those, and watch you Productivity and growth soar.

2. Close city spacing

By placing many cities around close together, you can find the best way to divvy up your improved tiles among them. This may not seem like a great advantage, but when you really start micromanaging everything you realise how critical it is. I cannot stress it enough.

Another thing is that by putting your cities close together you end up working all tiles within your borders when your cities reach size 12. Not only is this efficient, but it can be critical with a restricted land mass.

Also, notice that a loose city spacing strategy relies on Temples and expanding borders to access all the best tiles. I find this hugely wasteful.

3. Avoidance of corruption

If at all possible, I try to expand in a blob shape around my capital. Point 1 takes precedence over this IMO, but only up to a certain point; chasing down far away Luxuries will do no good early on. If all your cities are close together, it will be that much easier to connect them, and therefore you reduce corruption due to distance from the capital as well as corruption due to being unconnected from it.

If I'm forced to expand away from my capital due to the local geography, I'll begin planning an early Palace jump.

4. Coastal access

If a city is going to have more than 1 or 2 Coast or Sea squares within its radius, it needs to be a coastal city. But coastal cities are good in and of themselves too: just consider that every coastal tile produces as much commerce as a roaded tile next to a river (more, come to think of it). The main reason it is possible to keep up in tech on the higher levels is because of coastal cities.

Try to imagine that your availalbe land mass extends all the way out into the Coast tiles (this is easier to do if you've played SMAC). Looking at it this way, you'll kick yourself for not using all that available land in previous games!


I hope this is the kind of advice you're looking for. Believe me, you're asking the right questions: early economy is so very important.


Dominae

[ducki]

Re: Coastal cities - I agree that they become commercially strong...
... once you have harbours to boost those coast tiles up to self-sufficiency, but in the first 2000 years or so, I wouldn't settle "extra" coastal cities just for the sake of coastalness.

Definitely, do not avoid them, but once I've got one in my core(I love Colossus), I won't go out of my way to settle more of them the way I will for river towns - at least not until I get Mapmaking.

[Dominae]

ducki, I didn't mean littering the coast with cities at the first opportunity. What I was trying to say is that restricting yourself to cities with many workable land tiles (as BRC and many other players seem to do) is denying yourself some extra cities that seriously boost your Commerce. Sure, a Harbor is required to get them going, which is why you do not settle "pure coastal" cities right away. But still they should be kept in mind in the initial city placement planning.

On some maps, Map Making is the early builder tech of choice, even ahead of Literature and Currency.


Dominae

[BRC]

In your game I mentioned that fact that many of your cities were not close to fresh water. I always put as many cities as I can justify next to fresh water sources (Rivers mostly, since putting two cities around a 1-tile lake is pushing it, IMO).

But the above consideration applies to all special terrain features. Basically, every new city should exploit some bonus feature or another, immediately. If a Luxury is going to be within a city's borders once they expand (after a Temple and 5 turns), that is not good enough. Make sure that Luxury can be exploited right away.

I used the example of Luxuries, but in the early game the two critical features are Rivers and bonus Food tiles. Pack as many cities as you can around those, and watch you Productivity and growth soar.

Ok. I understand putting cities on fresh water, and settling around bonus food resources. Those I see as important reasons for tighter spacing.

Another thing is that by putting your cities close together you end up working all tiles within your borders when your cities reach size 12. Not only is this efficient, but it can be critical with a restricted land mass.

Do you end up building hospitals? Does this limit your late game at all?

Also, notice that a loose city spacing strategy relies on Temples and expanding borders to access all the best tiles. I find this hugely wasteful.

I don't want to start a temple debate here, but can you explain to me why they are wasteful. I can see that the shields may end up having a better use (non-religious), but I feel that a temple may be necessary in outlying cities where the lux. slider has little effect. Plus, I have a no flip streak going.

If at all possible, I try to expand in a blob shape around my capital. Point 1 takes precedence over this IMO, but only up to a certain point; chasing down far away Luxuries will do no good early on. If all your cities are close together, it will be that much easier to connect them, and therefore you reduce corruption due to distance from the capital as well as corruption due to being unconnected from it.

When does OCN corruption start to take its toll?? Just to point out, I almost never have a problem connecting all my cities a turn or two after they are built.

If a city is going to have more than 1 or 2 Coast or Sea squares within its radius, it needs to be a coastal city. But coastal cities are good in and of themselves too: just consider that every coastal tile produces as much commerce as a roaded tile next to a river (more, come to think of it). The main reason it is possible to keep up in tech on the higher levels is because of coastal cities.

Yes. I get this, and will start throwing down Coastal cities more. What do you rush in these cities (since you probably won't have much production)?

I hope this is the kind of advice you're looking for. Believe me, you're asking the right questions: early economy is so very important.

Yes. This is all good. And I think that my economy is where I need the most help.

Also, point noted on when to settle these coastal cities.

thanks guys

[Stuie]

Originally posted by BRC

I don't want to start a temple debate here, but can you explain to me why they are wasteful. I can see that the shields may end up having a better use (non-religious), but I feel that a temple may be necessary in outlying cities where the lux. slider has little effect.

Hope you don't mind if I jump in. If you have a good network of luxuries (which is a priority in my opinion), it makes more sense to build a Marketplace (to increase the luxury smilies, thus triggering WLT*D once size 6, and increase income) and a Library (which gives you culture and increases your research). It took me a long time to learn to appreciate the beauty of this combination and stop building Temples right away.

[BRC]

Thanks Stuie.

[ducki]

I did get the gist of it, Dom, I just wanted to clarify that pre-Mapmaking, the extra commerce is not always as usable and that coastal cities, while important, should not be a "rule" on most maps.

I agree completely with what you said, though.

[BRC]

Check it out.

I am starting up games and just playing to get the feel of the closer spacing. This is my first one. Comments appreciated.

edit: BTW, I notice that my score is lower. Is this because of more Unhappy citizens, or what??

However, I do lead in every major category but Land Area.