From: gnohmon@ssiny.UUCP (Ralph Betza)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: CIV (long) small cities, many responses to responses
Keywords: CIV small cities Big Start
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:14:14 GMT
Organization: Systems Strategies, Inc., NY, NY

I am still pretty much a beginner at CIV, although I read about it
here for quite a while before deciding to take it up.
My two previous postings have been extraordinarily successful at
provoking a flood of responses, full of very interesting ideas.
My dogmatic tone in the earlier postings was of course intended to
do just that.

As a chess master ( the FM in my signature refers to the
"FIDE master" title, which basically means that if I played a
hundred games with Fischer, I would have a real chance to win *one* ),
I have a natural interest in discovering the best opening moves of
any game. As a gamer with wide experience, I recognize that CIV is a
compound-interest game, and a Big Start can make things a lot easier.

Thanks to all of you who responded, I now have a better idea of why
you can't just use the same plan for the whole game that you use for
the start. I'm glad it is so; if not, my interest in CIV would have
quickly waned. I still believe in the Big Start, but I have lots
more to think about now.

Before I go hide, and play game after game where I just do the first
2000 years, I want to respond to a few of you.

> From: g1alan@cdf.toronto.edu (Kwan Alan Shiu Ho)
> Message-ID: <1992Nov5.183202@cdf.toronto.edu>

> I would suggest that you leave those games that you have already "won"
> and try the horde strategy on version 4 with no cheating.  I would like to hear

Already done! ( But not the version 4; I have no ftp, and no dos
tools even if I could get the files. I run CIV under VP/IX on ISC
Unix ) Cheats are good while you're learning, though. Also, cheats
can be instructive. The first time I tried emperor, I used the
edit-save-file stuff to get lots of cash, played according to
conventional wisdom, and I still didn't like the way things turned
out; that led me to think about the game more deeply. I haven't
edited any save-files since, and I've stopped with the
settler-cheats. I *will* forever continue to use the SaveGame cheat
at will in every game where it's possible. Why else do you have so
many different generations of save files in CIV? For the moment, I
will never unleash a horde of barbarians without retrying; but in
the future, who knows? After all, I no longer use SaveGame when I
try to swamp the enemy Knight in Populous! Nobody likes to lose;
it is good to use the cheats until you understand the game and begin
to feel uncomfortable about using them. And, any cheat that you
discovered yourself and didn't just read about on the net -- why,
that's not cheating at all!

> cheats.  Anyway, your analysis seems to make a lot of sense.  But I do wonder if
> you can keep the same efficiency at version 3 and 4, because you cannot make
> scientists and taxmen in cities of size smaller than 5.

Ouch! In order to manage the small cities, you MUST be able to make
a scientist in a city whose population is 1 or 2; and these are the
best cities to have! This change doesn't just kill the Horde, it
kills any attempt to make intelligent use of small cities.
It is a kludge. It is not a logical simulation of anything.

In order to remove a city, you MUST be able to starve it down to 1.
I take it you can at least make entertainers with this kludge in effect?
Can you take a city of 5, turn them all to scientists, and starve it
down to a city of 1 scientist?

> From: bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan)
> Message-ID: <63isTB4w165w@netlink.cts.com>

> Ok fine, but how does one get settelers out without cheating?  One has to
> have at least a level 2 city to get a setteler, and one has to build a
> big enough milatary to protect yourself.  I agree in the beginning, the
> more the better, but once you have the enemy "in a fishbowl" than level
> 30+ cities are much more easier to deal with, I want a city than can
> crank out a w.o.w. in 15 turns, not 15 cities that can each do it alone
> in 100.

You push the first few settlers out by doing BUY as soon as
population reaches 2 and you have enough cash -- check every move to
see if you can do it yet. You get the cash to do this by setting taxes
to 100%. If you don't sell the palace ( and I think you shouldn't ),
and you don't find any metal deposits ( which is probably a waste of
a village, but might be worth it at a very early stage because 50
dollars in 3800BC is worth more than 5000 dollars in 1000AD ), you
always have to wait longer than I'd like.

Before my first posting, I had apparently had a run of luck where
very few barbarians came around; 4 Emperor games in a row without
much barb trouble. Last nite the barbs were really restless, but
still not *that* much trouble. Cities a few squares from the coast
can build defenders before the barbs arrive. Only coastal cities
need resident protection; and it's better to meet the barbs in the
hills outside the city than wait inside the city. If the cities are
small, and you have enough of them, the occasional loss of one is
less expensive than maintaining a static defense would be.

I found that a collection of small cities turning out caravans can
build a WOW in 2 or 3 turns...

> From: mperry@waikato.ac.nz
> Message-ID: <1992Nov6.132100.12006@waikato.ac.nz>

> What is the time scale in V1.0? In the deluxe version on my Brother-in-Laws
> PC it is 20 years per turn to 1000AD (250 turns from 4000BC to 1000AD). As
> such, I don't see how you can do so much in the first 2500 years.
> Consider a start:

> You build a city in 4000BC
> You build your first militia in 3880 (or worse).
> 	what do you do with it? wonder round and map? try to find scrolls of
> 	wisdom? find money? block the enemy? get tech from the enemy?
> 	Problem - the militia wont last 5 minutes doing anything but wander and
> 	block the enemy.
> You build your first settler next in 3480 (this is being generous)
> Build second city in 3420
> Build third in 3100

The following is an extract from some analysis I did. It assumes
every square you settle on is grassland with resources, and there is
another such square nearby. This is true of the good earth
starting places, but last nite I tried a custom game where I got
started in a big swampy area and, due to lack of resources and food,
it was hard to use the small-cities idea! I blew it. I wish I could
try over without knowing what the map looks like.

The second city doesn't get built until 3660, but that's better
than your 3420. I definitely won't build militia for protection
until I have a settler and a second city. I might still decide that
it's better to build 1 militia first to map the immediate area while
you wait for population to grow to 2. A very extreme idea, which I
haven't tried yet, is to build the second city right next to the
first one -- and make a road out of cities! You need to start in a
good area, but as a way to build a road, it's even faster than the
settler-cheat. An even more extreme idea is to carpet your whole
starting area with cities; only the outer ones will be able to
produce settlers, but the inner ones can generate lightbulbs and
cash. Naturally, you have to be able to remove them later.
I like to try extreme ideas....

The scenario is optimistic in that it disregards the need to make
militia *sometime*. I now like the idea of plunking the third city
down in a forest, if possible, where it gets a self-sustaining 2
foods, and 4 resources, and using it either as a cash cow ( build
and sell barracks ) or as a militia factory.

The scenario is optimistic in its later stages in that it assumes
you can continue to find places to settle.

However, this scenario is also pessimistic in that it assumes you do
not BUY a settler as soon as possible.

Scenario B: Settlers move 5, then build new cities.

CONDITION CODES
F    Found a city
I    Population Increase
L    Settler born next turn ( city in Labor )
B    Birth of a settler
M    Moving completed ( scenario B )

            INCOME    UPKEEP   FOODBOX   PRODBOX  SETT COND
TURN  POP  RES FOOD  RES FOOD HAVE GOAL HAVE GOAL LERS TION
  0    1    2    2    0    0    0   20    0   40    0    F
 10    2    3    2    0    0    0   30   20   40    0    I
 16    2    3    2    0    0   12   30   38   40    0    L
 17    1    2    2    0    1   14   20    0   40    1    B(1)
 22    1    2    2    0    1   19   20   10   40    1    M
 23    2    3    2    0    0    0   30   12   40    0    F(1), I
 32    2    3    2    0    0   18   30   39   40    0    L
 33    1    2    2    0    1   20   20    0   40    1    B(2)
 34    2    3    2    0    1    0   30    3   40    1    I
 38    2    3    2    0    1    4   30   15   40    1    M
 39    2    3    2    0    0    5   30   18   40    0    F(2)      (A)
 46    2    3    2    0    0   19   30   39   40    0    L         (C)
 47    1    2    2    0    1   21   20    0   40    1    B(3)
 48    2    3    2    0    1    0   30    2   40    1    I
Cycle:
 52    2    3    2    0    1    4   30   14   40    1    M
 53    2    3    2    0    0    5   30   17   40    0    F(3)      (D)
 59    2    3    2    0    0   17   30   35   40    0    L
 60    1    2    2    0    1   19   20    0   40    1    B
 61    2    3    2    0    1    0   30    2   40    1    I         (B)

(A) The city founded on turn 23 by the settler born in turn 17 is
now in Labor. It's about 3200 BC.
(B) The numbers for turn 48 are the same as for turn 61, so the
cycle repeats every 13 turns.
(C) The settler born in note (A) founds a new city.
(D) This city has founded 3 others; the first of them will soon
produce a new settler, and has founded a city which will also soon
produce a settler; the second has a settler walking around; the
third is brand-new. It is almost 2900 BC, and you have 5 cities; by
2800 BC, you will have 8 cities.

> set science on 100%.

I still think taxes 100% until you BUY a few settlers and have a
little reserve. But science 100% as soon as possible, yes.

> 	Develope along wheel, demorcracy, mathematics, religion, rest.

Mapmaking and writing have been my first goals. However, it seems
that if your starting position is bad then triremes might not be
sufficiently useful. You have to have enough resources to load them
up with, or they do no good.

> 	leave possible scrolls alone.

Thank you! I had just about come to the conclusion that the first
few advances cost very few lightbulbs, and therefore the villages
should be kept until the midgame. On the other hand, for BUYing
settlers, even "valuable metal deposits" aren't bad; and a friendly
tribe that gives you a new city is really great. So, I'm still not
sure whether it's better to take villages at once or not.
( Great. I thank you for the advice, then disagree. )

> From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
> Message-ID: <Bx9KuF.H6F@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

> In ver 3/4 there are unhappy people and there are VERY unhappy people.
> Very unhappy people are based on the # of cities and government type.
> If you try the "horde" strategy in 3/4 without considering very
> unhappy people, you'll soon reach a point where all of your cities
> are in revolt (even the size 1 ones) and there is NOTHING you can
> do about it until you lose some cities.

This only means to me that you have to know what the critical number
is, and start removing cities before it's too late.
If you tell me what this number is, I can *pretend* I have this
feature.
Is it a kludge? Is it a logical simulation of anything?
When you have an area carpeted with small cities, it is like
suburban sprawl. In the real world, this does not cause so much
unhappiness. What it *does* cause in the real world is pollution.
Ten cities of one, in the real world, make more pollution than one
city of ten; nothing is close enough to walk to, so it's drive,
drive, drive.

-Ralph Betza (FM),
 uunet!ssiny!gnohmon

"The question of whether Dijkstra can swim is more interesting
 than the question of whether a submarine can think" - Deep Thought
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games