damn, deity is hard - Page 2

Ribannah · February 13, 2001, 20:31

quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-13-2001 03:20 PM
But you ignore all "cons":
c) war conditions (small loss may cause a big problem, )
d) doubled research and the effect of WoWs (i. e. doubled for each half of civ)
e) a teamwork between both halves of civ

[c] My empire is better prepared for war, because it has roads.
[d] Research catches up even faster than size, because I have roads. And by the time we are completing WoWs, I have probably already overtaken you.
[e] You have little of that, since you have no roads.

Did I mention that my empire has roads?

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Ribannah · February 13, 2001, 20:55

[quote]Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-13-2001 03:19 PM
Any function may be considered as exponential if the exponent depends on variable "x": I am always right

[QUOTE]

A function (an expansion) is exponential if and only if the slope (the growth of the empire) is proportional to the value of the function (the size of the empire).
Simplifying in ICS terms: if you have 1, then 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 cities after equal periods of time, you can call it exponential. If you 9 cities by 1500 BC, exponentiality demands 81 cities by 1 AD. A quadratic expansion would demand "only" 25 (if you had 4 in 2750 BC).
With railroad, democracy and on infinite land, exponential expansion is be possible, but by that time you have already won the game

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Theben · February 13, 2001, 23:04

You seem to think that dropping the second settler ASAP doesn't involve road-building. It is simply a matter of improving as much terrain as one thinks the city will use before it can (or you plan) to pop out another settler. This usually means building 2-3 roads max.

In other words, don't get your hopes up.

Edward · February 14, 2001, 01:52

East Street Trader,

Good point. Those early hut nomads make me drool!! You might get two or more free cities with them if you continue to found cities instead of work the land.

A minor advantage for those of us with weak micromanagement skills - no need to keep track of which of those settlers is the NON guy. I've been known to accidentally found a city with him when I try the keep him around for unsupported infrastructure duties.

rah · February 14, 2001, 10:36

It seems that all the good MP players agree it's beneficial to create a second city asap. Since these people play real opponents.....nough said.

And I find that In MP, an opponents road system will assist me also

The only time i pause to improve with the second settler is to road a buffalo in reach of my capital on the way out.

RAH
Quickest to Monarchy is always beneficial.

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 12:14

Ribbanah,
BTW, what means LOL, I am a newbie on the net?

I am always right:

If I have understood well, there is no settler working in your example "NONE-SETTLERS FOUND". That is what I (Didn't you forgot any refinement of "don't preserve second settler" strategy?) and Theben (don't get your hopes up) mean.
You have to compare all possible "2nd settler found" strategies with "2nd settler work" so that you may declare that the "work" strategy is better.

I supposed you supposed

the first settler built (the 3rd settler on aggregate) within "found" strategy immediatelly takes a mission of your non-settler and start working on squares so that you may compare well.
I did so in my "granary" example.
BTW, I used a granary because I thought you are encumbered by the idea of none support and I wanted to erase this advantage of "work" strategy. But now, I don't think that a granary was best for purpose of comparison: if you replace a granary by a settler then a comparison may be easier.

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 07:31 PM
[c] My empire is better prepared for war, because it has roads.
[d] Research catches up even faster than size, because I have roads. And by the time we are completing WoWs, I have probably already overtaken you.
[e] You have little of that, since you have no roads.

I repeat: we are too theoretic in our thoughts about a halved civ. I like thoretic thinking, but we cannot apply it suitably now. In fact, power of your "work" civ isn't behind power of the "found and don't improve terrain" civ.
BTW, did you monitor following quantities of both civs in your comparison game?
sums (for all cities) of shields, trade, <food surplus / size of food storage>

I will call theses three numbers as "approximate power" next.
(Of course, it is very rough expression of power of a civ, but it's better than nothing.)
If yes, could you post them?
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 12:16

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 07:31 PM
A function (an expansion) is exponential if and only if the slope (the growth of the empire) is proportional to the value of the function (the size of the empire).
Simplifying in ICS terms: if you have 1, then 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 cities after equal periods of time, you can call it exponential.

I don't count number of cities, because this is an irrelevant quantity. I consider a general power (or "approx. power", see a foregoing definition).
An expansion is never exactly exponential: you must always suppose that the exponent varies within the time.

quote:

With railroad, democracy and on infinite land, exponential expansion is be possible...

then it will be more than exponential (the exponent will increase within time)
Will I teach you one day

you must not forget equivalents of
d) doubled research and the effect of WoWs (i. e. doubled for each half of civ)
(you suppose no research and no WoWs)
e) a teamwork between both halves of civ
(you suppose all cities will take an independent way of development)

quote:

With railroad, democracy and on infinite land...

Good. Some indication

of theoretic thinking. Don't give up

East Street Trader · February 14, 2001, 14:13

This is a lively debate indeed - and I'm not sure I'm following it well.

Maybe one comparison might be to quantify and compare the value of all the work done by a "none" settler employed to work the land, to the net contribution made by the city founded with the "none" settler under the alternative regime. By net I mean the contribution made over and above the city's production consumed to support its own needs.

I have not attempted a quantification but my instincts are that the volume of extra arrows, wheatsheaves and shields due to the work of an unsupported settler would exceed the net contribution of one city.

But that ignores the "tide in the affairs of men" arguement. And it is a powerful arguement. It is easier to reinforce an early lead than to play catch up.

So I stick to my proposition that if I'm not forging ahead early I need that extra city down to fuel expansion.

But Ribannah makes good points about the value of roads.

How many times is it possible to get advantage out of the arrival of barbs (or at least avoid damage) if you can move one or two units to the right spot in time? How often do you win a race to pen in a potentially troublesome neighbour because your phalanx or settler or diplo has the use of a road?

And what about extra shields? I love to have a mined wine/gold/coal/iron special at my disposal early. It is downright comforting in a 5 (or even 10) shield city to build a barracks and let the vets roll rapidly off the production line. Or to set to work on HG, the Collosus or the Lighthouse knowing that it is not going to be a month of Sundays before the work is completed.

These are "tide in the affairs of men points" which point the other way.

And there is a more specific point. No matter how skilful the player there is a vulnerable period which starts with the founding of the second city and, for me, tends to end about when I have a strategically placed diplo with gold in his pocket. During this period there may be bugger all to do but await the loooong video if barbs turn up. You don't have the military force to repel them nor the gold to buy them off.

Delaying the second city for just a short time and working the land so that this city is more productive (and the second and third cities, once established, will be too) truncates the vulnerable period at both ends. The exploration going on before the second city is down helps as well and some land improvement (foresting river squares, say, or building a road to a handy mountain) also affords your warriors some chance of proving defensively sufficient.

I give little or no weight in the arguement to the risk of losing the "none" settler. I managed that feat very near the start of the second OCC I played but I account that to be one of my better claims to fame as an incompetent. It is normally easy to keep him comfortably out of the firing line.

I rate this a close call in which seat of the pants judgement taking account of the exact situation is called for - not adherence to a fixed rule.

P.S. Sometimes when you tell a settler or engineer to stop work they do so at once and you can move them in the same turn. More commonly they stop work that turn but can't be moved til the next (hence the OCC debacle). I'd be interested if anyone has a view on what determines the difference.

rah · February 14, 2001, 14:48

"P.S. Sometimes when you tell a settler or engineer to stop work they do so at once and you can move them in the same turn. More commonly they stop work that turn but can't be moved til the next (hence the OCC debacle). I'd be interested if anyone has a view on what determines the difference."

It's very simple. It's the order of movement. If you notice early in the game, with two settlers. Settler A flashes to move first then Settler B moves. The next turn the order is reversed, Settler B then A. If the settler that is working has already cycled, his turn has been used to continue working. If you click on him before his turn in the rotation, you may move him.

As long as the settler isn't first in the rotation for the turn. If you click on him as the turn starts, you will always be able to move him. You may artifically change the order by going to into a city screen at the end of your turn (or in between turns in MP, or during the building announcements at the beginning of a turn) and activate a unit. That unit will jump to the top of the rotation at the beginning of the turn. Now before you move that unit, click on the settler. You will be able to move him.

RAH
Also a good way to cancel go-to commands when taking over for an AI in a MP game.

Ribannah · February 14, 2001, 15:33

quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-14-2001 11:16 AM
I don't count number of cities, because this is an irrelevant quantity. I consider a general power (or "approx. power", see a foregoing definition).

You can count the size of your empire in any way you want, it doesn't make the expansion exponential.

quote:

An expansion is never exactly exponential: you must always suppose that the exponent varies within the time.

By this definition ANY expansion would count as an exponential expansion, because you can always write its formula that way. In other words: the term exponential would give no information whatsoever. I don't think your definition is very practical!

Slowthinker, I'm perfectly prepared to make a third run in which the NONE Settlers build a few roads first (say to their destination and THEN found - only by that time the newly built supported Settlers will be at that spot about just as fast. Or I could have ALL Settlers build ONE road before they move to their destination - but I can tell you now that such an approach would be worse than either of the extremes chosen in my sample runs. Maybe you can tell me exactly what your approach is, or if you like, propose a map we will both play and we'll compare our games

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 15:34

East Street Trader,

quote:

But Ribannah makes good points about the value of roads...
And what about extra shields? I love to have a mined wine/gold/coal/iron special at my disposal early...

I think that the majority of people here agree that roads/irrig./mining is a good strategy.
The question is if to start it with the 2nd settler or the 3rd one.

quote:

P.S. Sometimes when you tell a settler or engineer to stop work they do so at once and you can move them in the same turn. More commonly they stop work that turn but can't be moved til the next (hence the OCC debacle). I'd be interested if anyone has a view on what determines the difference.

See "The Lone Engineer at Work" thread, and place your question there, if you can.
And read my note "1." in 2nd post there.

Edward · February 14, 2001, 16:16

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-14-2001 02:33 PM
Maybe you can tell me exactly what your approach is, or if you like, propose a map we will both play and we'll compare our games

Fight! fight! fight! fight!

Whoops, sorry. Got caught up in the moment there.

I fall in the settle soon camp. Early claiming of land is so important in my games. I play as a peaceful expansionist on small worlds so War4ever's note about city sites being at a premium is particularly true for me. My success is directly proportional to the amount of land I claim in the beginning (either through fast city founding or warriors penning in the AI). My experiences are similar to geofelt's, DaveV's, and Ming's - rapid expansion is best.

Rambling comments follow...

quote:

East Street Trader
I have not attempted a quantification but my instincts are that the volume of extra arrows, wheatsheaves and shields due to the work of an unsupported settler would exceed the net contribution of one city.

The above must vary depending on game circumstances. Otherwise the best strategy would be to either never found cities or to never make terrain improvements. To everything, turn, turn, turn...

quote:

Ribannah
- but I can tell you now that such an approach would be worse than either of the extremes chosen in my sample runs.

There is a point that's reached pretty early where building a road or two on your way to found a city saves time for future settlers to get to the borderlands. I can't imagine that a purist stance of never building roads until you've laid down all your cities could beat one that incorporated their prudent use.

Ribannah's point about hitting the unhappiness wall before the Hanging Gardens is well taken. This somewhat lessens the advantage of building cities at that point.

The fact that new techs double in cost over time means that soon the "keep the settler" approach makes you behind by one tech at most. However, early Monarchy is quite important (and you can never trade for it).

p.s. I'll have to try the "build a settler from your only city while it's size 1 yet not have it disband" trick (which obviously requires you to keep that "extra" settler at least a little while).

p.p.s. What's the etymology of your name, Ribannah? Like "rah", it sounds like something from the rabbits' language in the book "Watership Down".

p.p.p.s. Thanks, DaveV for the demand tribute advice. While I didn't build Marco Polo's Embassy, shaking down the AI's periodically has resulted in much unwarranted coinage. They've also withdrawn troops allowing me to pen them in more. I'd been treating them much too kindly in the past.

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 16:35

Will anybody tell me what "LOL" means? I speak seriously for once.

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-14-2001 02:33 PM
You can count the size of your empire in any way you want, it doesn't make the expansion exponential.

Hm, what about "population" in "demographics" window?

quote:

>An expansion is never exactly exponential: you must always suppose that the exponent varies within the time.
By this definition ANY expansion would count as an exponential expansion, because you can always write its formula that way. In other words: the term exponential would give no information whatsoever. I don't think your definition is very practical!

I agree. By my definition ALL expansions are exponential, by your definition NONE real expansion is exponential.
I may study exponent rate, at least. You may do nothing.

quote:

Maybe you can tell me exactly what your approach is, or if you like, propose a map we will both play and we'll compare our games

Good idea. I had a similar one:

To choose a map, to publish it, and let play people up to monarchy. Any participant would publish saved games or pictures with a list of all actions (micromanaging of cities included) of all turns with very detailed explanation of decisions. Then we could discuss everything.

Of course, less detailed (and less time consuming) approach would be useful too.

The problem is I didn't start thinking about the best civ algorithm yet (In other words, I have no own approach). I will contact you later.
Of course, I am not afraid to be behind you in that comparison game now...

(a graceful escape...)
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 17:04

quote:

Originally posted by Edward on 02-14-2001 03:16 PM
p.p.s. What's the etymology of your name, Ribannah?

Karl May?

quote:

Fight! fight! fight! fight!

I don't fight. I cannot fight: I have no fixed opinion to that problem.
I just comment Ribannah's false statements

[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

Ribannah · February 14, 2001, 17:28

quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-14-2001 03:35 PM
Will anybody tell me what "LOL" means? I speak seriously for once.

LOL = Laughing Out Loud (

)

quote:

I agree. By my definition ALL expansions are exponential, by your definition NONE real expansion is exponential

That is true in Civ2, but there may be exponential expansions in other games or in entirely different processes. The mathematical concept is pretty clear.

quote:

... To choose a map, to publish it, and let play people up to monarchy. Any participant would publish saved games or pictures with a list of all actions (micromanaging of cities included) of all turns with very detailed explanation of decisions. Then we could discuss everything.

Exactly. Monarchy may be too early to stop, but we could make that decision when we get to it.

quote:

The problem is I didn't start thinking about the best civ algorithm yet (In other words, I have no own approach). I will contact you later.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

rah · February 14, 2001, 17:38

See "The Lone Engineer at Work" thread, and place your question there, if you can.
And read my note "1." in 2nd post there.

Slowthinker,
I read the post and it is not technically correct. Please read my explanation on page one of the this thread.

RAH

Ribannah · February 14, 2001, 17:44

quote:

Originally posted by Edward on 02-14-2001 03:16 PM
I fall in the settle soon camp. Early claiming of land is so important in my games. I play as a peaceful expansionist on small worlds ....

On small worlds (with 7 civs) I am more inclined to build my second city right away, too.

quote:

There is a point that's reached pretty early where building a road or two on your way to found a city saves time for future settlers to get to the borderlands. I can't imagine that a purist stance of never building roads until you've laid down all your cities could beat one that incorporated their prudent use.

Not ALL your cities, indeed! By the time you are researching Monarchy (or Republic) it is usually wise to have settlers improve at least some of the terrain.
If you kept your NONE Settlers, you will gain 3-6 turns during that stage of the game.

quote:

What's the etymology of your name, Ribannah? Like "rah", it sounds like something from the rabbits' language in the book "Watership Down".

It's Elf, and translates into something like Herb Gatherer, quite appropriate for a Druid

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 20:11

rah,
I moved your post and my answer to "The Lone Engineer at Work". You now, I like order and stealing.

Ribannah,

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-14-2001 04:28 PM
Exactly. Monarchy may be too early to stop, but we could make that decision when we get to it.

My idea was to play no WoW and no war (villages only, large map or to erase other civs) game. Then we could compare easier (even at monarchy).

quote:

That's not all: this is all my civ experience:
2 unfinished games of civ1 couple years ago (one to cannons, one to bombers), couple of starts of civ2 (max. to the beginning of A.D.).

Ribannah · February 14, 2001, 20:19

quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-14-2001 07:11 PM
That's not all: this is all my civ experience:
2 unfinished games of civ1 couple years ago (one to cannons, one to bombers), couple of starts of civ2 (max. to the beginning of A.D.).

You can appoint a champion to do the playing for you, if you wish

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

SlowThinker · February 14, 2001, 20:55

I would think you have already understood I always suppose to be the best.

BTW, it looks our war will interrupt now

. When you will want to continue, there are some other "jewels" waiting to you in the thread "City improvement build order?"
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

Dry · February 15, 2001, 06:18

yesterday evening I made some tries:

A. NONE settler builds 1 road, then builds city asap; produced settlers build 1 or 2 roads, then build new cities.
B. NONE settler keeps improving land; produced settlers don't improve land, but build cities asap.
C. hybrid solution: NONE settler builds roads in 2 or 3 land squares, then builds city; produced settlers do the same.
Except for case B, all roads are build in 'easy' terrain only (grassl., plains, desert, tundra).

Then I compared situations in 2000BC:
A. 4 cities (3 size 2, 1 size 1), 4 warriors, 1 phanlanx, 2 settlers on their ways, monarchy, but no complete connection between cities, 89 gold, 5 techs.
B. 4 cities (2x 2, 2x 1), 2 warriors, 1 NONE settler, despotism, all cities connected, more terrain revealed, better spots (whales) for future cities found, 71 gold, 4 techs.
C. 4 cities (3x 2, 1x 1), 4 war., phalanx in construction, 2 settl., monarchy, 1 road missing (in forest) for complete connection between cities, 93 gold, 5 techs, same revealed terrain as B.
All 3 cases had same income: 5 and research: 10

I was an A player, I think I will evolve toward C.

B is not, from my point of view, a good solution because:
- for many early turns, I had improved terrain that benefits nobody (inefficiency).
- The NONE settler lose time in movement, going from one city spot to the other.
- it has as many cities as case B and C, but the 2 last ones were only 2 or 2 turns old and had not even produced their 1st warr. yet... against barbs that are attracted by improved terrain, this can be dangerous.
- case A and C had 2 more settlers, close to founding 2 more cities.

conclusion:
During those early turns, no city grew more that 2 in size, so improving more than 2 squares per city may be seen as a waste of time. A good general rule for early settlers would be: improve - if necessary - 2 squares (3 or 4 for the NONE settler), then build a city. If you want connection between your cities, let your produced settler en-route to their new city spot build them... of course, this rule, as every rule, has exceptions

.

[This message has been edited by Dry (edited February 15, 2001).]

SlowThinker · February 15, 2001, 11:08

quote:

Originally posted by Dry on 02-15-2001 05:18 AM
During those early turns, no city grew more that 2 in size, so improving more than 2 squares per city may be seen as a waste of time.

I don't have thought a best strategy over now, but an intuition tells me that it may be useful to have one superfluous square improved, so that you can switch between high production of food and high production of shields (it is useful not only to accelerate a production: it reduces losses of shields in last shield-production turns too).

East Street Trader · February 15, 2001, 11:11

Thanks, Rah, for the move order points. They are definately going to be of use to me.

As to the main debate, your point about immediate usage of the improvements, Dry, seems to me an excellent one.

If the "none" settler makes a road in a trade special square which is currently being worked he immediately adds one trade arrow per turn to the civ's productivity. If he merely irrigates a square which, one day, will be worked the lost production that an extra city would be contributing is almost bound to offset the delayed value of the irrigation.

What I think your case C may illustrate is that the 1 shield support cost per turn saved by hanging on to the "none" settler is not really a very significant part of the overall equation. The factors weighing heaviest in the balance are the immediately usefulness of the land improvements (whether for productivity, defence or other advantage) as compared to the production from one more city.

I note the terrain you used for your test. It is my guess that retaining the "none" settler may be a better option when it has been possible to found in a river rich area. I seem then to find a lot of good, immediately productive, work for him to do. Conceivably that would apply in a hill/mountain special rich area also, although I am less confident of that as you sometimes can't afford to work mined iron/coal early.

Scouse Gits · February 15, 2001, 12:39

This has been a very interesting thread.

In my "trade/sleaze" version of ICS on Large/Giga maps I would always build with the second settler. The key to playing the game this way is to have both Gardens + Colossus in your capital. No settlers are built from the capital as it has too much work to do! If you want both the above wonders in the same city the Gardens must be started early.

So settler #2 really founds all the other cities! Only when I reach about 6 cities do I worry about roads. Usually you can find one city busting with food near wheat/fish which will produce a guy to do the roading. The roads must be on the way by the time trade arrives for easy transport of caravans.

If you play in different ways perhaps it is best keeping Settler #2 busy making terrain improvements.
However, too much detailed theoretical analysis is lost
in reality. (What former British PM Harold Macmillan referred to as "events, dear boy") In the action of the game we all know how much things can change resulting from the early discovery of our neighbours, the persistent arrival of Barbs or that Advanced Tribe discovered in 3750BC!

IMHO more important than using the slide rule over each and every possibilty is to have a series of short, medium and long-term goals. Micromanagement is fine, but sometimes you get so close to the coalface that all you see is coal dust flying in your eyes. Manage the global nature of the game as well!

After playing and enjoying many of the Succession Games it seems to me that too many games just bump along without a real purpose. (this is partly in the nature of succession playing) This is relevant when we come to look at the terrain improvements some players have seen fit to make with precious settlers. Often there is extensive mining in places which would starve if the mines were used. Over enthusiatic irrigation is very common, as well as putting a road through a "useless" square when a trade special is crying out for one!

Whatever you do with Settler #2, make sure you use him wisely!

-------------

SG(2)

lord of the mark · February 15, 2001, 17:50

well you guys have sure covered things completely.

In the past i have tried to keep the non settler around as long as possible. which means building terrain improvements that wont be used until much later. I think i will do better building a road or two, then starting 2nd city. Im sure there are strategies into which keeping the extra settler would fit, but i think for a diety beginner the start new city approach is easier, and less likely to tempt me into perfectionism (not that im doing ICS, at least at this point)

BTW, my current game (the one mentioned above as the Persians) is going well. After a long mediocre beginning and midgame, but with peace and steady expansion, i got SOL around 1800, went commie (from monarchy) went fundie when the AI started a war (in 1864) and made supreme by 1885. Its now 1905 and ive just gotten howies, and have a reasonable chance of winning, i think. Winning "ugly" to be sure (fundie and howies) but at this point i'll take a diety win anyway I can, and will try improved starting strats next time.

BTW ive also checked out matthew's beginners guide to diety. Any thoughts?

Lord of the Mark

Edward · February 16, 2001, 16:05

quote:

Dry:
- for many early turns, I had improved terrain that benefits nobody (inefficiency).
- The NONE settler lose time in movement, going from one city spot to the other.

Yes, that can be a problem for the NONE settler in the beginning. In my early game I keep all my cities very small so I can't do to much useful irrigating. And also the hand built settlers can build roads where needed along their various routes to the borders. The NONE settler must dash this way and that to get to the right place.

Your observation about revealed map area is also important to note. This is why building a bunch of warriors (in your size 1 cities) to explore in all directions is as important as making settlers.

quote:

East Street Trader:
What I think your case C may illustrate is that the 1 shield support cost per turn saved by hanging on to the "none" settler is not really a very significant part of the overall equation.

Unit support is really crazy in the early game. I think it's the one food the settler eats that's really the savings. In Despotism and Monarchy, units don't cost any shields until you get a number of units equal to your city size (Despotism). In Monarchy you get to support three units shield-free even in size 1 and 2 cities. I think that unless you're a Republic or Democracy - settlers never require shields for support.

In Ribannah's defense, that NONE settler will save you a food every turn (two food when you get an advanced government) throughout the whole game. Not sure what that adds up to, but in analyzing Dry's three outcomes, remember that outcome B, unlike A & C, includes that bonus NONE settler. Someone might want to make hybrid option D where the produced settlers help that sweaty NONE unit by founding some roads themselves (as they do in A & C).

I still fall on the settle early camp. New cities are just so valuable.

Scouse Gits,
If you're playing SP, you might want to consider delaying wonder building until you have Trade. Then you can have your entire civ helping to build the wonder via caravans. The city which is going to have the wonder will also build a caravan until you have the four needed for an early wonder. I found that when I had a city start the long process of early wonder building it would grow into a big unhappy city needing martial law units and a temple. If you wait for trade and use caravans, your wonder city can spit out a few precious settlers in the early game instead of worrying about its infrastructure.