quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu on 09-08-2000 08:28 PM f) as soon as city #1 grows to size 3, add the two settlers to city #1.

Since the food box retains the previous food stored when you add a citizen - would it be better to add the settlers when the food box has more than just a couple of food stored or is it a push? Is adding three settlers to a nearly ready to grow size two city better??

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

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.

Still, I am holding my ground on development (actually ahead on the better techs, and got to Monarchy faster). In fact, I will have Philosophy in just a few turns. I have fewer cities, to be sure, but they are 5-5-5-4-3-1, and about to build another.

IN SPITE OF this world being mostly plain and swamp (which seems hard on the "size 5" strategy), it is working well enough. On a more grass and forest setting (we are in 2x1x), I would have a killer lead!

I got my first 2 cities built on corn, close together, and that certainly helped, but it is very very difficult to build up the needed food surplus with plains. This idea needs grass/forest around the specials.

Errors I made: Forgot how to add a settler to the main city and disbanded it there instead of using "b". That set me back. Built barracks because I couldn't decide between more settlers or warriors (and my opponent is a fierce attacker). But I also got pikemen and monarchy fast, so maybe I've come out ahead (vet pikes early, cool). Best tech rate I can maintain is 4, but had 3 once.

Have had difficulty keeping the scientists fed with the plains terrain, but even then, I had 6 turns of 5 scientists before having food problems in the main city the first time.

With some practice, this could really work well.

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

Perhaps I can get the Currency with Philosophy, but I think I would rather have Chivalry or Monotheism, given the aggressive nature of my opponent. I have to give some thought to Map-Making, too.

I think that if I had played this strategy more accurately at the start, I would have each of those by now and could well have Vet Crusaders and Trade while my opponent was looking for Elephants.

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

Couple of problems with this strategy--or it might be just my game.

1) Having only 1 food surplus did not stave off famine. 8 deficit with five scientists in Despotism (7 if in Monarchy--assuming you are on grasslands which I was); dropped a pop.

2) Huts effect your tech research--one game because of techs coming from huts. I didn't get monarchy until 100BC.

3) Location, location, location. If area is swamped, jungled, forested, hilled or Mted. Slows you down, BIG TIME.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Maud'Dib on 10-05-2000 03:09 AM</font> Xin, Couple of problems with this strategy--or it might be just my game. 1) Having only 1 food surplus did not stave off famine. 8 deficit with five scientists in Despotism (7 if in Monarchy--assuming you are on grasslands which I was); dropped a pop.

quote: 2) Huts effect your tech research--one game because of techs coming from huts. I didn't get monarchy until 100BC.

This strategy is one way to compensate for that problem in the short term. Of course the fewer non-essential techs you have, the more effective this strategy will be. As a rule of thumb, the number of beakers early on needed is 10x the number of techs you have. This is compensated upwards if you are ahead, downwards if you are behind. If you read some of the other threads in the strategy forum, you'll see that quite a few people will deliberately avoid tipping many huts until they are in monarchy for that very reason.

quote: 3) Location, location, location. If area is swamped, jungled, forested, hilled or Mted. Slows you down, BIG TIME.

That is why you use settlers from feeder cities to get you up to size 5. And an added benefit here is that you do have a chance to pick and choose where to build those feeder cities to best pump out those settlers.

I get the impression they only apply to MP games, is that correct ?

2x2x means double production (every sqaure produces twice what it normally does, and the second 2x stands for double movement. Each unit gets to move twice it's normal amount. (horses move four, explorers move six)

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 10-05-2000 09:51 AM 2x2x means double production (every sqaure produces twice what it normally does

Well... yes and no. I don't have a lot of experience with 2x production, but it seems that +1 type modifications are not handled properly. Specific examples: if you build a city on a square that would normally produce no shields, it will produce 1 shield in 1x production. In 2x production, it still produces 1 shield (not 2, as you might expect). Even more egregious: building a road in grass, plains, or desert will increase trade by +1, rather than +2.

However...

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 10-05-2000 10:07 AM Note that if you own MGE, you can start a hotseat game with 5 AIs and 2 human players, don't restart eliminated players. Quit when you're one of the human players, and you can play a 2x production game against the computer. The AI is even more clueless than usual in 2x production, of course...

All you have to do to play on these settings against the computer is start a mp game, and when it the screen that shows other players coming in comes up... just continue with no other players... real simple. And you don't have to be connected to the net to do this.

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)

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 .

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...

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.