Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: CIV: small cities are better
Keywords: CIV small cities
From: bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 15:57:52 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

gnohmon@ssiny.UUCP (Ralph Betza) writes:

> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!                                                        !!
> !!  SMALL CITIES ARE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN BIG ONES.       !!
> !!                                                        !!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I got a few reponses to my earlier article, on the net and by mail.
> I see I did a *lousy* job of stressing the most important point;
> I talked about too many other things in addition to it.
> The important thing was the idea that small cities are more
> productive than big ones.
> 
> "Yes, Civ can be easy once you figure out the Mongol Horde strategy."
> 
> Well, I remember vaguely reading a description of the Mongol Horde
> strategy before I got CIV. As I remember it, it involved waves of
> militia, which is different from my implementation. I'd be happy to
> see the description again.
> 
> Anyway, the implementation isn't the important point, and the most
> important part of what I presented isn't the Mongol Hordes Strategy,
> and it isn't even any particular strategy.
> 
> The most important point is that conventional wisdom is wrong, and
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!                                                        !!
> !!  SMALL CITIES ARE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN BIG ONES.       !!
> !!                                                        !!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> This is an important *fact* that everybody seems to have overlooked.
> It's a fact, not an opinion. Really.
> 
> Many strategies can be based on this fact. The particular strategy I
> described is the one you get if you single-mindedly base
> *everything* you do on this one fact. The first 2000 or 2500 years of
> this strategy are unquestionably the "best way" according to the
> rules of the game; the following years are simply taking things to
> ridiculous extremes by playing the whole game like the start of the
> game! Let's call the first 1500 years of it the "Big Start".
> 
> I have yet to complete a whole emperor-level game based on it,
> because it's new by me. I'm working on it. I'm up to 800 AD,
> discoveries every 3 turns, already got rocketry, keeping population
> down to 300 for the moment, current score over 1000. Score could be
> higher; I'm determined to do it all in despotism, which I know is
> suboptimal. Score could be lower; I have used settler-build-fast
> cheat at several points. Score could be lower; I started in what is
> almost the best possible position, Zulus on Earth ( but with
> Egyptians ). Could have conquered last opponent 500 BC ( or earlier,
> if I had tried to do so ).
> 
> I believe that a 5000-point score with no cheating is possible, but
> democracy is necessary to achieve it; also Zulus on Earth with no
> Egyptians might be necessary.
> 
> By the way, isn't random-world less of a challenge than "English on
> Earth"? I have worked out a strategy for this situation ( based on
> small-cities, of course ) that I'm eager to try; might just retire
> from the current game -- no feeling of accomplishment because I used
> settler-build-fast.
> 
> "Once you get so many cities, you start getting VERY UNhappy people."
> 
> Yes, but you can slow down after you have everybody else beaten.
> The point isn't so much how big you can get, but how fast you can
> grow. Since version 1 is what I have, I can get the legal limit
> without trouble, and in the game I described that's what I want to
> do; but whatever version you have, you can take advantage of small
> cities to outgrow all other opponents for the first 2500 years, and
> then do something else.
> 
> Switching to larger cities, and fewer of them, after getting the
> Big Start with small cities, is another thing I plan to try.
> You may diminish your score or your chance of winning by doing so,
> but the game must be easier to play. In my current game, it took
> hours to get from 400 AD to 800 AD because I have so many settlers
> running around and because I have so many cities demanding
> attention; and things won't ease up for an estimated 400 years.
> 
> The good thing about the Big Start is that it isn't a cheat;
> it's simply the correct way to do things according to the logic of
> the game.
> 
> The bad thing about the Big Start is that it makes the game too easy
> to win. I agree that you have to impose fair limitations on yourself
> in order to create a challenge, like "don't use the settler cheats"
> and "don't start as Zulus on Earth". However, refusing to use the
> Big Start is just saying "I'll deliberately make bad decisions for a
> while in order to give the computer a chance."
> 
> 
> -Ralph Betza (FM),
>  uunet!ssiny!gnohmon
> 
> "The question of whether a computer can swim is more interesting
>  than the question of whether a submarine can think" - Lenny Dykstra
> 

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.

--                    
INTERNET:  bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!bigbro
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games