BRC's game

[ducki]

That's a good exercise, though I'm sure Dom will have some good critique.

I'd ask why is Iznik way the hell up there?
If it was a goodie hut, no biggie.

If you REXed it up there, I'd have put it either 3-squares NW of Thebes on the other side of the river or 3 squares W of Thebes, where that worker is making a road.

Also, Bursa is, IMO, a good example of where to use an early Temple for any civ, not just Religious.
I'd have placed it 1 square to the East or 1 square to the SE and use a temple to catch the Iron.

The case for 1 square SE is simply defensive - it's 1 roaded move from Thebes and forces the enemy to cross from two sides in order to avoid the river penalty.
You don't need to worry about eating the forest's extra productivity with all those hills.

The case for 1 square E is for those that hate to have those dang lakes in a city radius, especially when you've already got a river for both Commerce and Aqueducts. It also grants a defensive bonus that doesn't care where the defender is, but is not 1 move away.

[Dominae]

BRC, I haven't checked out your file yet (soon!).

Although Stuie's comment is right on, I thought I would address this point myself:

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. Plus, I have a no flip streak going.

I was not trying to start another "Are Temples good?" debate. I think you took my comment out of context. What I was trying to say is this:

If you're going to use loose city spacing, you're undoubtedly going to miss out on some bonus tiles until your borders expand. Some people think this is a knock-down argument for the early Temples. But the problem is solved without Temples by simply using tighter city spacing. Thus your early queues become open to build whatever you choose, while you enjoy the benefit of all your the best tiles immediately.


Dominae

[BRC]

First Ducki:

I'd ask why is Iznik way the hell up there?

Got this in a peace treaty with the Ottomans.

Also, Bursa is, IMO, a good example of where to use an early Temple for any civ, not just Religious.

This is still an Ottoman city... we look alike.

Does it appear to be better??

[BRC]

If you're going to use loose city spacing, you're undoubtedly going to miss out on some bonus tiles until your borders expand. Some people think this is a knock-down argument for the early Temples. But the problem is solved without Temples by simply using tighter city spacing. Thus your early queues become open to build whatever you choose, while you enjoy the benefit of all your the best tiles immediately.

So this is a case of you choosing early growth, production, and commerce now. I have been playing this game to acquire as much land as possible, and that will turn into more production, population, commerce...... later on. Wider spacing allows me to get as much land with less cities used. However, I'm still able to get enough cities to be productive. Then I start hitting the AI.

I'm still geared to playing for the future.

[Dominae]

Ah, the double-post, how I love thee!

[Dominae]

BRC, given that cities cannot grow beyond size 12 until Hospitals, you will not be using many of the tiles within your borders if you go for a loose city spacing. And given that you're playing against many AIs and there is always plenty of land available (even on Archipelago maps), you cannot really deny everyone land. REX is actually a misleading term, because the idea is not just to expand, but rather to build many cities.


Dominae

[ducki]

BRC -
To me, that looks like a good tight placement, though, like I said, Dominae is likely to point out things I just don't see yet.

I would definitely plop a city in that square where the worker is building a road West of Thebes, though.
Take the worker off that tile and have him work the Wheat until a Settler shows up.
Or is that not your worker? Those colours are confusing me.

[BRC]

Ah, the double-post, how I love thee!

I finally figured out what all that +1 stuff was about.

To me, that looks like a good tight placement, though, like I said, Dominae is likely to point out things I just don't see yet.

No offense Ducki, but Dom has probably doing the whole tight city spacing thing longer. That being said, thank you. You are teaching me things.

I would definitely plop a city in that square where the worker is building a road West of Thebes, though.

Next one is probably heading there.

Thought I would post this, make it easy.

[Dominae]

Well, that's a big improvement in city placement, BRC! Very very nice.

ducki's comments about Bursa make a lot of sense, but unfortunately it is not your city. Definitely things to keep in mind, though.

Of course, I have comments of my own...I've attached a screenshot to make this easier.

1. The next city south of Thebes should go on the Tundra/Forest tile, and not on the Hills where you seem to be planning to put it. The are various reasons to do this. First, the Tundra tile is a poor tile once you getting around to chopping the forest down. Second, a city at that location gets to benefit from the Game tile, which should be chopped and irrigated ASAP. Try to have your bonus Food tiles accessible by as many cities as possible.

2. Pi-Ramesses is in an unfortunate position in that it cannot benefit from either near Cattle tiles. I cannot find any solution for this, so its current location is fine (if not...unfortunate).

3. Alexandria will have too many Coast tiles within its borders once they expand, and it is not a coastal city (this is what I mentioned above. I would put it either on tile SW or one tile NE. Each location has its benefits and drawbacks.

4. Giza should go 1 tile NW (across the River). This opens up more room to fit in a city due East of the Ivory tile. As is, the placement of cities to the South gets a bit awkward.

5. You seem to like to put rounds up to your future cities. I'm not sure how good this is myself, as I rarely do it. But what I'm sure of is that your Workers would do better chopping Forest at this point in the game. This will grow your army much quicker, and could possibly reveal some nice bonus Grassland tiles (next to Rivers, no less!).

6. This is the most important point: check your city view often! Although you cannot see it in the shot, Thebes is producing 5 extra Food, but only needs 1 to grow! This is what I mean by switching Laborers around in tightly-packed cities; you can maximize the use of your best tiles and minimaze waste.

7. Finally, this has nothing to do with city placement, but I recommend you focus on growth a little more here. There is a lot of nice land North and West that you can exploit easily. One Settler pump in Thebes is not enough; get your other cities to produce a Settler when possible. This is assuming, of course, that you have the situation with the Ottmans under control.


Again, nice improvement. By the way, from his AU203 AAR, ducki appears to have some good city placement tactics. I'm sure his advice is just as useful as mine in this regard.


Dominae

[BRC]

3. Alexandria will have too many Coast tiles within its borders once they expand, and it is not a coastal city (this is what I mentioned above. I would put it either on tile SW or one tile NE. Each location has its benefits and drawbacks.

I thought about that after I placed it.

Giza should go 1 tile NW (across the River). This opens up more room to fit in a city due East of the Ivory tile. As is, the placement of cities to the South gets a bit awkward.

I was trying to get that Ivory hooked up as quickly as possible. I guess I wasn't looking at the big picture.

This is the most important point: check your city view often! Although you cannot see it in the shot, Thebes is producing 5 extra Food, but only needs 1 to grow! This is what I mean by switching Laborers around in tightly-packed cities; you can maximize the use of your best tiles and minimaze waste.

I didn't check it for one turn, and the gov. emphasized production. I am working on getting back to normal.

Finally, this has nothing to do with city placement, but I recommend you focus on growth a little more here. There is a lot of nice land North and West that you can exploit easily. One Settler pump in Thebes is not enough; get your other cities to produce a Settler when possible. This is assuming, of course, that you have the situation with the Ottmans under control.

Assuming you mean Memphis, ok. Get another factory going.

This is assuming, of course, that you have the situation with the Ottmans under control.

What is "under control"? I can't wipe them out yet, but I can defend. Should I plan on finishing a peaceful REX or build up the military and hit 'em?

Again, nice improvement. By the way, from his AU203 AAR, ducki appears to have some good city placement tactics. I'm sure his advice is just as useful as mine in this regard.

I would trust Ducki with my kid (if I had one). BTW, how is the little booger??

[ducki]

LOL, he's fine, thanks for asking.

I took no offense, because I agree that Dominae is far more experienced than I, and I did grant that I was sure Dom would see stuff I didn't. I've learned a lot, but most of it from the 'poly pros here like Dominae.

I do tend to "shoot my mouth off" from time to time, but it's always in the spirit of learning and helping.



Back on topic - I was going to mention the Ottomans - I'd try to take or flip Bursa ASAP - simply building around it and throwing up some temples might do the trick - maybe - on the other hand, a swarm of Archers would much quicker and more reliable than trying for a culture-bomb.

If that weren't the only Iron I saw nearby, I wouldn't worry about Bursa nearly as much.

[Dominae]

I suggest you make peace with the Ottomans (if you're already in war or one is imminent), and focus on REXing some more. You should have the advantage at this point.

'Poly pro? Ha! They're all playing MP on a LAN somewhere...


Dominae

[ducki]

Just out of curiousity, BRC, do you have the 4000BC autosave on that last one?

Having never gotten very far on Emperor, I'd like to see how different it would turn out.

[BRC]

Just out of curiousity, BRC, do you have the 4000BC autosave on that last one?

Sorry, I don't. I only planned to play this game long enough to get the cities down. I don't keep autosaves either. Sorry Ducki.

However, I wouldn't mind playing a same-start game with you.

[Theseus]

If I could chime in, I think that the basic concept on tighter city spacing is that you want to be using your BEST tiles as early as possible... thus, whether due to happiness, aqueducts / rivers, or hospitals, in all likelihood you will not have the population to max out tile usage for a loooong time, and should therefore optimize your placement accordingly.

[BRC]

Thanks Theseus. It makes a little more sense to me now.

[BRC]

All right fellas!! I need a little help. Here is my Emperor game. Things started out well, as I rexed my initial land. I then turned on the Persians, who were outpacing everyone. I trimmed them back severely, in a series of wars, and then have been filling in the area.

Here's the problem. I have taken over the lead in score and power, but have started to lose momentum. I need a little help getting back on track. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Here's a map of the world and my military advisor screen.

Note: Zululand just entered a GA.

[BRC]

Sorry for the quality of the map.

Here is the latest sav, coupled with the 4000 B.C.

[BRC]

Nevermind guys. Back on a roll. A well placed FP will do that for you, via leader. Write up in a few weeks. !!!

[Theseus]

Originally posted by BRC
I then turned on the Persians, who were outpacing everyone. I trimmed them back severely...

Can we spell "cut Jerxes into small pieces and threw them to wind"?

If my barber defined "trim" the way you do...

I can't quite tell... do I see 71 Horsemen?! And what's the question about momentum?

[Jaybe]

Theseus,
TWENTY-one horse, I would wager.

[BRC]

Jaybe is correct. I'm so embarrassed.

While I have your guys' attention:

1) I didn't get a single leader, even with all the elite battles I've fought, until a few turns after I posted the game.

2) I wanted to build my FP about 10 squares directly east of my Palace, but it took a lot more effort to get it to produce any shields. I believe this was caused by the large number of cities that I control (due to tighter spacing). I finally rushed it with the leader, as I still had about 30 turns left, with little hopes of speeding it. My question is: Have you ever not been able to build your FP because of too many cities? What do you do to help combat this? I have the city in WLTKD and with a courthouse, and it still would have taken forever. If I didn't get that Leader when I did, the game might have taken a turn for the worse.

When this game is over, I'm gonna make a thread based on what I have learned over the past few months. We'll make it nice and neat so that other new players can look at it.

Thanks errryone. (bonus points for those who know where I live)

[BRC]

Bump for Sorvino Backhand.

I know you said that it is a problem that we can't compare games. My play style has been pretty well documented here, and has evolved over the last 6 months. This is just so you can see what I'm about.

Also, the AU "classes" try to fill this purpose of comparing games without competition. It's a pretty good thing.

Anybody with a comment is welcome to place their opinion as well.

[badman]

In the first post, dominae said that you irrigated too many grassland tiles.
I don't agree with that, I always irrigate a few, unless every single tile surrounding the city is grassland.
I think you irrigated as many tiles as I consider adequate.

[BRC]

Originally posted by badman
In the first post, dominae said that you irrigated too many grassland tiles.
I don't agree with that, I always irrigate a few, unless every single tile surrounding the city is grassland.
I think you irrigated as many tiles as I consider adequate.

I have talked about it with Dom and others and have come to the conclusion that it is best to mine them in the early game (barring unusual city sites), and go irrigate around the time of RR.
I really don't think that the net effect of our approaches is much different.

thanks for the input.

[Dominae]

I still disagree badman. Early on you cannot get more than 2 Food out of tiles unless they're bonus, so irrigating Grasslands is useless until Monarchy or The Republic. But by then your population will be high enough not to need the extra Food from irrigation. And even if it is not, the faster growth you'll get from irrigation will be useless once you hit size 12. In general, two Food per tile achieves sufficient growth (do not forget Granaries!), which is why I almost exlusively irrigate Plains and mine Grasslands.

There are some exceptional cases. If a Grassland needs to be irrigated to get water through to a dry area, I will not hesitate. Also, if a city has an inordinate number of Hills in its radius, irrigated Grasslands may be a necessity. Finally, once all tiles are worked and most cities are approaching size 12, I will sometimes irrigate a Grassland here and there in order to ensure all level of Food "equilibrium" in all my cities.

Edit: Also do not forget that mining Grasslands is a lot less expensive time-wise than mining Hills or Mountains. So if you're not getting your production out of Grasslands, you're either 1) relying on Plains, or 2) relying on Hills and Mountains. In the first case you'll find your cities big but very unproductive, while in the second case you'll be left way behind in production because your mines appear significantly later (twice as slow, for Hils).


Dominae

[BRC]

Well, he explains it better than me.

[badman]

Like Arrian, I prefer a rather loose city-spacing, so I will always have some tiles that my citizens don't use around size 12 cities.
Thus I can tell the workers (of a city) to work only on the mined grasslands when the city hit size 12.
I also think that your population simply cannot be high enough (not so much because of the production but the extra beakers are significant) and my cities almost never reach size 12 before I'm a republic or a monarchy.

I personally feel that 2 extra food are not enough for an optimal city growth, I prefer 3-4 (it's not that more but BRC didn't irrigate any more than that if you also take account of hills).

Plains are also pretty effective because they produce as much shields+food as unshielded grassland.
Of course I know that grassland is way better, especially in the early game (when you can work shielded grasslands because your cities are still small) but you shouldn't underestimate plains.

In most of my games, the extra turns that it takes to mine a hill, aren't a problem because I like having a large worker force. Actually I really like hills and like building cities next to them.
A city surrounded by 50% hills and 50% grassland is better than a city surrounded by grassland only, IMHO.

I agree with you on all the points you've made, but I can't see that BRC irrigated to much in his game.
I do get most of my production out of grasslands but I nearly always irrigate one or two of them.
Once a city reaches size 20 I remine tiles so it will not grow any larger.
I also think that our strategies are very similar, I just don't like just 2 extra food as along as my city can still grow.