The "Size-5" strategy

[Xin Yu]

Maud'Dib:

1) I really don't know what happend to your game. You only have a pop drop if all of the following are true:

a) food box is empty (upper-right corner of city screen)
b) have a food deficit (top line of middle block of city screen shows some bushels in shadow)
c) do not support settlers (settlers are disbanded before pop drops)

2) and 3): they are irrelavent to the strategy. Techs from huts always slow you down, and terrain always have an impact on resources, regardless what strategy you use.

[Paul]

I don't have that much MP experience, but I believe that in 2x production only the basic terrain production is doubled. The extra production from roads, mines, rivers etc. is not doubled.

[Mercantile]

In my game with Ming and others, i tried out this size five strat Xin, and it worked well enough for one of the players to comment on the chat with kings " i believe we have a student of Xin's strategy"

Thankyou for making this game easier for me

[Ming]

It is a great strategy when used properly.
I will admit that I only use it selectively, when it makes sense... but man... it really gives you a bump in science.
[This message has been edited by Ming (edited October 06, 2000).]

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith on 09-10-2000 01:13 AM No matter how careful you are you will, I repeat WILL, screw up and forget to turn some of the cities back to food production, thereby losing a population point.

I've finally tried this in my AI headstart scenario, and I have to say AS is right. The consequences of inattention are severe: your city drops to size 4 (with an empty food box), and you have to spend another settler building it back up to size 5. I've had it happen 3 times so far .

But the science boost is worth the tedium. Works especially well for a sleazer (not that I know any ).

[KaiserIsak]

I just tried this strat. on a deity game, and i invented monarchy before i got a 5 city. Seems like the strat is too slow for me.

[cavebear]

I've been trying out the size-5 strategy against the AI (no confident enough with it against human players). It *is* difficult in some ways, though I've always been a micro-manager). Still, I like some of the results, and I will continue to learn more about doing it properly.

Mostly, I find my perceptions about how I *should* advance at odds with the way the Size-5 strategy works (and I attribute the dissonance to myself, not the strategy).

My guess is that a lot depends on each player's expectations, goals, and style. As a builder, I like the idea. It just takes a lot of practice to master. If it gets me to where I want to be in a game faster than other strategies, I will use it.

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance...

[Matthew]

Dag nab, just saw this one. I kind of hope they fix the food box thing in Civ III. Seems to me that if there is less food than required people should start to die.

I did do something similar to this long ago in an MP 2x1x game when the barbs got my capital. I didn't even have Monarchy yet. The one resource I had was food. Virtually all shields and trade went to corruption. But food I had enough of. I hurriedly got 4 cities to size 5, and made 3 scientists in each. I got Monarchy and managed to stay in the game. Wish I would have known about the food box thing back then.

This is a great find, but it certainly is not omnipotent.

1. Shields are worth anywhere from 2 to 4 gold, depening on what they're used for. A size 5 city, which would produce 16 gold, could also be producing 7 shields, along with gold, science, and food for growth.

2. I imagine that this is most effective early on when rushing for some wonder, and the limiting factor is who gets the tech first. Otherwise the offset to growth is probably substantial.

3. Unless you must have a certain tech first, no tech is worth mone than about 30 shields.

4. I can make a caravan from a size 5 city in 7 turns. I can often get 300 gold and science from that caravan.

Having said that, I at least am comforted to feel that civ as I know it is not gone. just changed somewhat. I look foreward to implementing this little tactic in the future. Great job, Xin.

I still hope they fix the food box thing. And keep the Camel in civ III.

SAVE THE CAMEL !!!!!

[Rasputin]

for us newbies..

This strategy obviously is to research as fast as possible and get advanced techs. But what about defences.. If Barbs attack early or other Civ discovers you what do you do then? too late to start building defenders then! Am i missing some secret ingrediant for keeping the enemy away from citys...????

[La Fayette]

Rasputin
Bribing back (1 dip and some gold needed, but a city that has been yours before is half price).
The loss of a city is painful mainly when it is feeding settlers or maintaining many improvements.

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu on 09-11-2000 11:46 AM Thanks everybody for your support. Now please answer this poll: size-5 vs ICS, who will be ahead?

Wouldn't a mix of the two be even a greater strategy? half of your cities producing only settlers and the other half generating science or cash or whatever you want them to generate.

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu on 09-14-2000 01:47 PM Some notes: Just as 5 scientists can give you 16 science bulbs, 5 taxmen can give you 16 golds. The effect increases when you build city improvements. This is very useful when you are rushing for a wonder. You can have some cities build caravans, and others hire taxmen (stop scientific research for a while), and use tax money to rush buy caravans. One food caravan can supply a city enough food for 5 turns. Using this, in later stage of the game, you can push the above strategy to its limit -- in a big city hire 16 scientists or taxmen (with corresponding city improvements), and use food caravans to keep them work there forever. Suppose you have a size 20 city and build marketplace, bank, and stock exchange. Hire 16 taxmen will give you 120 gold per turn (suppose the other 4 citizens can provide enough gold for the maintainance). Spend 125 gold every 5 turns for buying a food caravan, you net 95 gold per turn, enough to buy 30+ shield of production, only without any happiness and pollution problem. The ultimate parctice is to use food caravans to increase SSC's population to 36, and hire 16 scientists, then use food caravans to support the food consumption.

This is almost exactly the equivalent of the "Starving Silicon City" that I described a few weeks ago. I bow.
(the fun of it is that Xin Yu also chose a city size 20 to develop his example)
(for those interested, I mention a tiny mistake: "one food caravan can supply a city enough food for 5 turns". This is true only for a city producing no food at all by itself).

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[Xin Yu]

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu on 09-14-2000 01:47 PM One food caravan can supply a city enough food for 5 turns.

This has considered the food produced by the city itself. For example, a size 20 city consumpts 20*2=40 food each turn, or 200 food in 5 turns. A food caravan will fill half of the food box, or 21*5=105 food. The city itself must produce 95 food in 5 turns, or 19 food each turn to make up the difference -- needs 4 people working on farmland (plus the city square itself).

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu on 03-09-2001 12:43 PM This has considered the food produced by the city itself. For example, a size 20 city consumpts 20*2=40 food each turn, or 200 food in 5 turns. A food caravan will fill half of the food box, or 21*5=105 food. The city itself must produce 95 food in 5 turns, or 19 food each turn to make up the difference -- needs 4 people working on farmland (plus the city square itself).

I agree with your example and your calculations, which show that 1 caravan feeding 1 city in 5 turns is possible.
Still, this is not always true (in fact, the number of caravans required depend upon how much food the city itself produces). Example (city size 20, consuming 40 food/turn):
1) City produces 0 food = 1 caravan (105 food) needed every 105/40=2,625 turn.
2) City produces 10 food/turn = 1 caravan needed every 105/(40-10)=3,5 turn.
3) City produces 19 food/turn = 1 caravan needed every 105/(40-19)=5 turn.
4) City produces 30 food/turn = 1 caravan needed every 105/(40-30)10,5 turn 5) City produces 40 food/turn = no caravan needed (no deficit)

[Xin Yu]

After writing several scenario strategies, suddenly I find that some elements of the size-5 strategy are very useful in playing scenarios. In a scenario, the player usually already has several cities, or can occupy several cities very quickly. This makes the size-5 strategy more attractive, for the following reasons:

Some scenarios require the player to research certain techs for better units. The faster the research, the better. Changing all citizens to scientists will boost the research and give the player access to better units, which in turn will let the player occupy enemy cities faster. Example: Imperial Rome, Red Front.

Some scenarios do not allow advanced government types. By changing some citizens to taxmen or scientists, the riot factor associated with number of cities will disappear, and the bribe/waste associated with early government type will diminish. Example: Mongols.

Hence, for a lot of scenarios, a great strategy applies:
1)at the beginning, hire all citizens as scientists (build food caravans or settlers to add to small cities and grow them to size 5 if necessary) and research a better weapon;
2)change scientists to taxmen after the new weapon tech is researched, meanwhile sell city improvements in cities to finance your production;
3)rush buy new weapons;
4)attack nearby cities using the new weapon;
5)Sell city improvements in newly occupied cities and hire its citizens as taxmen;
6)rush buy more new weapons;
7)go for wonder cities first to reduce cost and unhappiness.

[Smash]

quote: Originally posted by Smash on 09-23-2000 02:48 PM This "hire specialist" scheme does have a place in any game.You don't have to do this all the time.You may want to do this during certain parts of a game.And maybe not every city. It works really well in scenarios.You can get techs way before you were supposed to.Its fairly easy to generate 5000 beakers in the first 2 turns of Red Front for example. A good tactic for fast science but eventually you need some sheilds.I find myself hiring scientists and taxmen at certain times.

[LeeT]

I've been using the Size 5 city, and more generally the idea of city specialization in standard SP and MP games, and find them both effective and enjoyable, (as opposed to ICS which I always screw up and find annoying).

But I don't see the point in using it in scenarios. If I have to blow out city improvements to pay the bills, the scenario wasn't well made, and I won't finish it, and if I don't need to sell them off, I won't, even if I am paying upkeep on an Aqueduct in a size 1 city. MP, especially against friends, is all about squeaking out every last ounce of advantage you can, but scenarios have their own house rules I feel.

I'm currently finishing Harlan's Pacific War scenario, and I could have sold off endless improvements and bought freight to deliver, hired tons of scientists, and probably matched the allies one tech advance per turn. But if Harlan had meant for that to happen, he wouldn't have made the Japanese based on a Fundy government.

The whole point is to sweat as he gets ever closer to the atom bomb while you to finally get a Fighter strong enough to take down a SuperFortress Bomber. Or conquer India, buy up Libraries and Universities with the european imperialist gold you captured and triumphantly earn that one advance every three turns!

An MP game using a scenario... well that'd be a different story

[markusf]

I find this is one of the most useless strats... You lose production, and you actually lose trade. If you have trade routes in your cities (seems most people don't) the trade routes in your local city and destination cities will all decrease the loss here is more then any potential gain... Then you have the loss of shield production which can again be significant...

arii uses this strat against me all the time, and i can easilly beat him in any science race. expand expand expand. Science isn't that important...

[markusf]

duplicate
[This message has been edited by markusf (edited March 20, 2001).]

[Xin Yu]

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 03-20-2001 01:02 PM Science isn't that important...

Yes, science is not that important, but wonders are. Size-5 strategy was designed for getting wonders faster. By doing so shield production was sacreficed for a while until certain techs could be reached. Then all 5 citizens were put back to work to get the wonder built faster.

Arii should target the right wonders (HG, Pyramids, Lighthouse, and if more than 2 players, GL) and build them fast. Then he'll be in a good shape.

[rah]

As always, I take any strategy Xin points out seriously. But on this one I have to agree with Markus. I played with the strategy a few times and it was only useful in a few situations.

Early in the game getting to monarchy.
I usually get to monarchy long before you can take advantange of it.
(short of sacrificing the second settler, which negatively impacts early expansion).

And the loss of production and trade offsets the science gains in the mid-game. If you're optimizing trade (like Markus) the beaker difference is quite small. And the addition of the caravans lost due to reduced production can offset the small beaker difference.

Situations where it can be useful.
1. If I can't find trade specials early and am forced to settle on low production, high food location. Usually after wandering at the beginning way too long and still not finding trade specials. Then I can make the strategy pay off.

2. Temporary science boost. If I'm researching a government tech(or the one preceeding one, and I'm trying not to miss an Oedo year, it can be effective. Same thing on a wonder tech when the race is afoot.

Summary, it can be useful as a short term strategy, but the loss in trade/production/food does not make it a viable long term strat.

RAH

[Adam Smith]

I wonder if the assessment of this strategy depends on whether you are in single of double production. In double production you you give up twice as much production to get the same amount of science, so this strategy is not as attractive.

I have used this strategy in single production and find it a good way to nail down specific governments or wonder techs in the short term. However, when going after wonder techs you have to both develop the technology AND exploit it (by building the wonder), so you need to time both science AND production in the last few turns. This may necessitate taking some cities out of the size five strategy.

edit: in parens

------------------
Old posters never die.
They justfadeaway

[This message has been edited by Adam Smith (edited March 21, 2001).]

[Scouse Gits]

Works well in our version of ICS - the 'core cities' Xin for the science and the 'empire' builds caravans ...

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[DaveV]

I agree with AS that this is a dubious tactic at 2x production but worthwhile at 1x. My standard sleaze now includes a handful of size 5 cities cranking out more beakers than the rest of my cities combined. The rest of the empire provides the production capacity.

[rah]

Wasn't thinking in terms of 1x vs 2x production since I so seldomly play 1x in MP. You may have a good point. But even taking that into consideration, I still think of it as a short term strat. And trade/expansion for the long term.

[arii]

Lol Markusf.
I beat you using variants of this strategy just as much as you beat me. If I would use this strategy in its pure form I agree that the lost expantion and prodution would doom you. I typically do it for 1 maybe 2 cities at the max and only when I badly need science (ie stuck in desp when I have gotten a bunch of crap techs from the hutts).

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by rah on 03-21-2001 09:13 AM Summary, it can be useful as a short term strategy, but the loss in trade/production/food does not make it a viable long term strat. RAH

I agree.
In fact I don't think Xin Yu designed that strat as a long term one.
Personally I use it mostly in my future SSC (growing any city from size 3 to size 5 takes a lot of time when one uses the 'natural' way of producing food in excess and stacking it in the box, so doing it in one turn using B command and 2 settlers is a real boost to that city).
Perhaps some strong specialists of early Republic manage to grow the city to size 8 very early using WLTCD. Personally I don't feel clever enough to take advantage of Republic that early. Hence I grow my SSC to size 8 either using 3 more settlers or 3 food caravans. A few turns of 'size 5' in the meantime provide about 10 beakers/turn in that city on the average and I find it precious.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[markusf]

quote: Originally posted by arii on 03-21-2001 12:21 PM Lol Markusf. I beat you using variants of this strategy just as much as you beat me. If I would use this strategy in its pure form I agree that the lost expantion and prodution would doom you. I typically do it for 1 maybe 2 cities at the max and only when I badly need science (ie stuck in desp when I have gotten a bunch of crap techs from the hutts).

Perhaps, but any time you do it in a city with trade routes your city loses a lot of food and production and really only gains 4 or 5 beakers on a city doing 50 science before you did it. As + 8 routes will decline to +5

And arri i was refering to our space race games where you tried it. I won the tech race every single time. Probably more do to with a optimized growing strat then anything else.... on 2x this strat is totally useless, on 1x its next to useless How is anyone supposed to build wonders if they spent all their early game time sacrificing production and settlar building for science? If you have few cities you can't build caravans.

[Xin Yu]

Size 5 works better in 2x! The only difference is that you don't add two settlers to the city, you only add 1 (or even none if you don't want to).

Suppose you are in 2x production and you have a few grass with one food special (wheat, fish, musk). Nearby you have a few forest with one shield special (bull, coal). You build one on grass, using the food special, another on grass but near forest, using the shield special. You can quickly grow both cities to size 4 and add one settler from the forest city to the grass city. Then the food city will be able to live with only 1 worker since even on despotism the city will have 9 food, thus you only have 1 food shortage so your existing food can last very long.

Now your forest city will build a wonder and your grass city will do the research. If you can build a library in the grass city it alone will be able to give you 3-4 turns per tech before trade. The size 4 forest city will be able to build a wonder in 12 turns. Advanced tribes are not rare in multiplayers so you'll have a third city from a hut.

[markusf]

And you will be dead shortly after that.
unless your playing 5 billion small, any other setting using that strat and you would be destroyed on 2x. the focus on 2x is to get as many huts and horses as you can asap.