A Silly Reason Why I Like SMAC - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  A Silly Reason Why I Like SMAC

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   A Silly Reason Why I Like SMAC

Afterburner posted 02-24-99 08:37 AM ET
Years and Years ago, during my initial obsession with Civ I, I discovered that the city placement strategy which minimized unused squares while eliminating overlap was to have city radii with interlocking corners.
To see what I mean on Civ II or SMAC, put the cursor on one of your cities. Tap the "8" key three times, then tap the "7" key once. Put a city in this square. Tap the "4" key three times and the "7" key once. Put a city in this square. Tap the "2" key three times and the "3" key once. Put a city in this square. Tap the "6" key three times and the "3" key once, and you're back at your starting city.
If you do this layout, you will have no overlap between city radii, and there will be a strip of 3 unused squares in the middle of these four cities. (You can get the same layout, rotated 90 degrees, by the following steps: City, 8, 8, 8, 9, City, 4, 4, 4, 1, City, 2, 2, 2, 1, City, 6, 6, 6, 9, and you're back where you started.)
Anyhow, once I discovered this layout (way back when there was only Civ I), I became obsessed with that layout and I *always* try to place my cities with this layout. In Civ I this could produce some really lame cities, especially with a young planet (and thus the potential for having a mountaintop city surrounded by other mountains and hills). In Civ II it wasn't so bad because with Engineers one could turn a lame location into a decent one by converting mountains to hills, hills to plains, and so on. But regardless of the terrain, I will always try to place my cities in this layout unless water intervenes and prevents me from doing so. And since I'm so anal about this, it causes me some slight cognitive dissonance when I *can't* place my cities in precisely this pattern. (Yes, yes, I know. It's damned silly, and I admit it. But we've all got our little quirks, and this is mine.)
Well...
With SMAC, thanks to the sea bases, I can now build my empire in *exactly* this layout for *every* base. If water is in the way, I just build a water base, et voila! -- the pattern is retained. I'm playing my current game as the Peacekeepers, I've got over 80(!) bases, and each one of them is laid out in the pattern stated above. Geometric order rules the layout of my empire, and I'm just so pleased about this I can barely stand it.
Anybody else have silly habits like this? Or am I the lone moron?
Yours,
Afterburner
Lee Johnson posted 02-24-99 10:50 AM ET
I wouldn't call it moronic. Obsessive, maybe, but not moronic. :-)
Glak posted 02-24-99 12:20 PM ET
That pattern thing is neat but I would never consider using it. I always played the role of chariot lord. I found that when you have chariots, catapuls and phalanx the game doesn't get any better (I'm talking civ1/civnet here, civ2 had a trashy random map generator). All of the strategy was found in those three units. Terrain and intense battles were where I was dominant. I also figured out that cities of size 2-3 are the most efficient. Since I had small cities population would grow fast and I could keep making settlers fast. This meant that I could quickly swarm over the land and get far more cities than the other players, that is until they started playing my way. This mean no disorder because I had small cities. If they grew too big (like to 4) I would starve them until they died. I didn't build any buildings ever and I just kept spreading and killing.
Oh about my pattern. I had a special naming system for my cities. My first city would be capital. Then I would make A1. All the nearby cities would be A2, A3 etc.. Cities built in a different direction would become B1, B2, etc... Each island would get another letter. This allowed me to know exactlly where each of my cities was. It was also fun to rename captured cities into the system. I sure like those chariots. I also made a complete system of roads covering almost every square. I was like a disease.
I guess I sort of got of topic but oh well.
Glak posted 02-24-99 12:26 PM ET
oh I forgot to say why I didn't use a pattern. Since I had such small cities I could pack them in tightly, sometimes with just one square between them. All that really mattered was getting 2-3 squares of good land plus the city spot. I wouldn't want to waste land by spacing my cities so far apart. Actually one time I made a giant city complex where every city bordered several other cities. It was a small island and I guess I needed to make a lot of units. I think that was my first time playing emperor.
Ender4000 posted 02-24-99 12:32 PM ET
I've found seperating all cities by 3 squares is optimum for me. They still have room to grow to size 7 easily, you can always support any city from another city in 1 turn with a road and enemy troops have problems getting to the inner cities. I think SMACs tech tree moves too quickly to use your Mongel civ strat Glak, though I could be wrong .
will posted 02-24-99 12:48 PM ET
I've also read in another thread that SMAC is engineered to deter this strategy, which is occasionally referred to as the "Mongol horde." There's a step function where at certain points, adding a new city will dramatically increase discontent. At Thinker level, I believe the magic number is ten, at which point, you get one fewer content citizen per city than you otherwise would. There may be another penalty at a higher level, but I haven't gotten there yet.
Although I don't follow Afterburner's grid system, I often use naming conventions to keep from getting city names confused on large maps. I typically pick a letter at random to name my capital. I'll use the same letter for other cities in the same region (as defined by rivers, coastline, peninsulas, or islands. As I add new regions, I move along the alphabet. That way, cities that begin with the same letter are in the same area, which makes it easier to use the go-to command.
CEO Bernard posted 02-24-99 01:14 PM ET
I wouldn't call this moronic. I try to follow a similar pattern, but only if the city site is decent, otherwise I will (regretfully mind you) throw off the pattern ("Heretic! Burn him! Burn HIM!").
Although this makes me think that you should create your own faction called "The Geometricists". Too bad you couldn't make base placement an enforcable rule.
Glak posted 02-24-99 03:29 PM ET
Heh heh funny thing that they call it the Mongol strategy. Ghenghis Khan has been my hero ever since I read a book about the mongols. I've only played the demo but so far I've noticed that the resource model is different enough (cities seem more productive and buildings are cheaper) that other strategies might work fine. Also being forced into having taxes (I think it is called economy) must help you buy buildings.
I know about the maximum practical city thing. They had that in both civ games also. That actually favors this strategy, at least in the civ games. Since your cities are small you only need a defense unit to keep the peasents in line. If you try to make big cities you can't possibly use only police but you have to resort to making buildings. In civ1/civnet all buildings were worthless. I would occasionally build wonders if I didn't need any troops.
Civ2 was a little more balanced and I would make buildings sometimes and I would even let my cities get up to 4!
Oh and here is why in both civ games (and probably in AC) small cities are better:
Glak's two cities:
A1: two people, three resource squares being worked, can support two soldiers (despotism of course), one soldier stays home the other fights.
A2: three people, four resource squares, supports three people, one at home, two extra
A1+A2: 5 people, 7 squares (the best squares in the area), has three people in the field
Someone else:
city of 5, works 6 squares, can support 5 people, has 3 unhappy people. Two people in the field.
So overall you get more resources and have more soldiers with more small cities. In fact it is even better in real life because you are able to exploit a larger area for resources (thus getting a higher average number of resources pre square being worked)
and have a much faster growth rate.
Of course this is in the civ games, AC is probably a little different. I won't know until I buy it and I don't think that I should get it until spring break. From what I've heard planet doesn't like big cities. Oh and I looked in one of those rules files, orbital whatevers don't cause eco damage.
Dan Scheltema posted 02-24-99 08:09 PM ET
I haven't found that Planet especially dislikes big cities. She does dislike big mineral production. I keep my eco damage at zero (Hey, I am "Green" according to the questionaire so I don't fight my inclinations!) and she rarely picks on me.
The many small cities is a good conquer the world strategy, but I'm not convinced it's a better development strategy. When one city of 25 total cities is producing more labs and energy then all the rest combined...
DanS posted 02-24-99 09:00 PM ET
They also call it the Infinite Cities Trick (ICT). At Deity level in Civ2, however, this strategy is impossible due to the first "step" being 8 cities. Clearly unworkable. In Emporer, it is 16 cities, so this strategy may work with a certain degree of success. At lower levels, this strategy dominates. But again, don't try to bring that strategy to bear in Civ2 w/Deity. You'll get your clock cleaned.
Afterburner should create a faction called the "Geometricians" or the "Anal Surveyors."
Glak posted 02-24-99 09:43 PM ET
Actually it works best at harder difficulty levels. Large cities can't cope with all the disorder (your two first guys are free I think, then everyone is mean) but small ones have no trouble. After a certain point I would cut back on cities but there was nothing wrong with going over the limit because I had to have a defense unit anyway so it would counteract the trouble makers.
I always played emperor (this is civnet, we played a lot of hotseat games with 3-5 players) so anyone who tried to make big cities would be crippled by rebellion. In order to stop rebellions they had to make trashy things like temples. Having temples meant having taxes which meant lowering your science rate.
I am quite sure that in civnet this was the only viable strategy. Large cities don't make more stuff either. Large cities are forced to work less valuable land and don't have a good squares worked to population ratio. Since each person in the town required food you really started losing out. You also started losing trade to corruption.
In single player the large city strategy was viable if you went democracy and went for the space program. However in multiplayer you can't do that because if you aren't ready to fight I'll just eat you.
Well I suppose most of you think that I went against the spirit of the game but I had a lot of fun, so did my friends. We really played the diplomacy part of the game too. I would often hire my hordes of chariots out for mercenary work. Claiming and defending certain areas was also fun. I hope that AC lives up to the civ tradition but I fear that they didn't put any work at all into the combat model. From what I read their doesn't seem to be any bonus for high ground of for hiding in the forest.
DanS posted 02-24-99 09:52 PM ET
On deity it is [bold]IMPOSSIBLE[/bold] to do the ICT, plain and simple. After 7 cities, your first pop goes angry, rather than staying content. So you have to send along company with your settler. Also after 7, it slides the scale for your whole empire, so you have to build a warrior for each city. After only 14 or whatever, you're talking major, major drag.
I would challenge you to try it out on deity. You'll get your clock cleaned.
I would assume that SMAC has the same sliding scale.
Glak posted 02-24-99 10:23 PM ET
Yeah I never played civ2 as much, it was kind of boring and too peaceful for me. I also never got the multiplayer version. Of course fundamentalism seems broken somehow, I mean no one is ever unhappy? Those spies also seemed a little too powerful, at least against the computer. I just poisoned everything until it was at one and then bought it. I don't recall what level I played civ2 at, I don't think I played diety much.
Well I guess I will give it a try over the weekend. I'll play how I normally do and then I'll write down how big each city is and so forth and how many I have. Of course I think that I would let my cities get into the "big" numbers like 4 on that game.
Oh and about the number of cities. I think you are overestimating how many cities I make. I make a lot, especially early on but I stop making cities after a while. I just think that given the choice between 15 big cities and 20 small cities that I would go for the small guys. Well I guess I will civ2 play this weekend, I'll give my report.
Heh heh, I spend so much time here on this thread talking about a game I don't play anymore. I wonder if I even have civ2 on this hard drive.
DanS posted 02-24-99 10:54 PM ET
Yes, I would be interested in your report. I have timelined this strategy with the Chinese roughly 10 times (it was about 2 months ago), so I don't think you can do it (is that enough of a challenge for you? ).
Good luck.
p.s. I heard someone say that they successfully used the ICT, but toward the end of the game they had luxuries at 80% or something just so his empire wouldn't go into chaos.
DanS posted 02-24-99 10:56 PM ET
BTW: humans tend to be more peaceful than the AI (I was surprised), so if you were bored with Civ2, Civ2 multiplayer would be a real snoozer for you.
Rathenn posted 02-25-99 12:00 AM ET
Afterburner, you are not alone.
I too used this exact pattern in Civ1&2 for the sheer efficiency of it's land use. I became obsessed with obtaining the highest population possible and so this was the best way. And boy, was i annoyed when after 320,000,000 people the game wouldn't register any more citizens even if i knew they were there.
And i really liked the fact that a city of size 1 would have 10,000 citizens, size 2 30,000, size 3 60,000, size 4 100,000 etc. (adding 10,000 then 20,000 then 30,000 etc.). Pity that isn't the case anymore in SMAC.
Rathenn posted 02-25-99 12:00 AM ET
Afterburner, you are not alone.
I too used this exact pattern in Civ1&2 for the sheer efficiency of it's land use. I became obsessed with obtaining the highest population possible and so this was the best way. And boy, was i annoyed when after 320,000,000 people the game wouldn't register any more citizens even if i knew they were there.
And i really liked the fact that a city of size 1 would have 10,000 citizens, size 2 30,000, size 3 60,000, size 4 100,000 etc. (adding 10,000 then 20,000 then 30,000 etc.). Pity that isn't the case anymore in SMAC.
Rathenn
CaptComal posted 02-25-99 12:29 AM ET
Afterburner...
Again ... you are not alone ... my buddy at work who introduced me to CIV 1 also made grids of where he would build his cities to maximize land use without overlap.
One more thing...
About those small "holes" of open space ... now in SMAC you can just put Supply Crawlers on them and they can "convoy" a resource to the city! That way there is ABSOLUTELY NO WASTED SPACE AT ALL.
Best Regards,
CaptComal
Arnelos posted 02-25-99 01:20 AM ET
Hehehe.
Afterburner,
Go read my recomended strategy for the Peacekeeper faction (I don't remember which thread).
My strategy in Civ, Civ2, and SMAC is pretty much the same. It was most effective in Civ2.
I call it "snowballing":
STEP 1:
You have the inner cities build settlers who build more cities who build settlers who build more cities.
*NOTE*: Build cities in a pattern that optimally uses all spaces without overlap. HOWEVER, it is better to overlap city spaces rather than leaving un-used spaces. Make sure to utilize EVERY SINGLE AVAILABLE SQUARE if at all possible.
STEP 2:
When central cities in the empire are no longer on the border, build ONE settler for the purpose of starting at the capital and building up infrastructure. Have these cities now build city improvements and Wonders.
STEP 3:
As the number of cities no longer producing settlers spreads, send their one non-city-building settler on a road-building mission toward the capital area. Build infrastructure out from the middle.
*CONTINUE STEP 3 UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPLETELY UPGRADED EVERY SQUARE YOU CAN, TAKING ALL AVAILABLE LAND
STEP 4:
Once you have Railroad and/or Supermarkets, go back to the capital and build railroads and farms starting from the center with your ARMIES OF SETTLERS. Continue this until you have totally run out of things to build up.
STEP 5: At this point, you have TONS of engineers with little to do. Have then sleep in your cities and send them around as damage control for pollution or to quickly build up conqured city areas once they are secured.
That strategy is INCREDIBLY effective in Civ2. That type of strategy I have found is most effective in SMAC with the Peacekeepers (which I agree with ideologically anyway ).
Arnelos
Peacekeeper
Keeper of Wisdom
Afterburner posted 02-25-99 06:59 AM ET
Arnelos sez:
>My strategy in Civ, Civ2, and SMAC is pretty
>much the same. It was most effective in
>Civ2.
>
>I call it "snowballing":
Sounds almost exactly like my strategy. My capital city builds a warrior to scout around and then either a warrior or a phalanx for defense of the city. Then it starts cranking out settlers. All new cities build one unit for defense and then start cranking out settlers. Each city keeps cranking out settlers until the distance the settler would have to travel becomes prohibitive (usually more than two city radii away). The last settler becomes the terrain improver for that city, and the city begins producing facilities.
Note that, with this strategy, Leonardo Da Vinci's Workshop is an absolute requirement. I always build that Wonder not to boost my military, but to instantly convert my (inevitable horde of) settlers into Engineers.
Yours,
Afterburner
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: A Silly Reason Why I Like SMAC
Afterburner	posted 02-24-99 08:37 AM ET Years and Years ago, during my initial obsession with Civ I, I discovered that the city placement strategy which minimized unused squares while eliminating overlap was to have city radii with interlocking corners. To see what I mean on Civ II or SMAC, put the cursor on one of your cities. Tap the "8" key three times, then tap the "7" key once. Put a city in this square. Tap the "4" key three times and the "7" key once. Put a city in this square. Tap the "2" key three times and the "3" key once. Put a city in this square. Tap the "6" key three times and the "3" key once, and you're back at your starting city. If you do this layout, you will have no overlap between city radii, and there will be a strip of 3 unused squares in the middle of these four cities. (You can get the same layout, rotated 90 degrees, by the following steps: City, 8, 8, 8, 9, City, 4, 4, 4, 1, City, 2, 2, 2, 1, City, 6, 6, 6, 9, and you're back where you started.) Anyhow, once I discovered this layout (way back when there was only Civ I), I became obsessed with that layout and I always try to place my cities with this layout. In Civ I this could produce some really lame cities, especially with a young planet (and thus the potential for having a mountaintop city surrounded by other mountains and hills). In Civ II it wasn't so bad because with Engineers one could turn a lame location into a decent one by converting mountains to hills, hills to plains, and so on. But regardless of the terrain, I will always try to place my cities in this layout unless water intervenes and prevents me from doing so. And since I'm so anal about this, it causes me some slight cognitive dissonance when I can't place my cities in precisely this pattern. (Yes, yes, I know. It's damned silly, and I admit it. But we've all got our little quirks, and this is mine.) Well... With SMAC, thanks to the sea bases, I can now build my empire in exactly this layout for every base. If water is in the way, I just build a water base, et voila! -- the pattern is retained. I'm playing my current game as the Peacekeepers, I've got over 80(!) bases, and each one of them is laid out in the pattern stated above. Geometric order rules the layout of my empire, and I'm just so pleased about this I can barely stand it. Anybody else have silly habits like this? Or am I the lone moron? Yours, Afterburner
Lee Johnson	posted 02-24-99 10:50 AM ET I wouldn't call it moronic. Obsessive, maybe, but not moronic. :-)
Glak	posted 02-24-99 12:20 PM ET That pattern thing is neat but I would never consider using it. I always played the role of chariot lord. I found that when you have chariots, catapuls and phalanx the game doesn't get any better (I'm talking civ1/civnet here, civ2 had a trashy random map generator). All of the strategy was found in those three units. Terrain and intense battles were where I was dominant. I also figured out that cities of size 2-3 are the most efficient. Since I had small cities population would grow fast and I could keep making settlers fast. This meant that I could quickly swarm over the land and get far more cities than the other players, that is until they started playing my way. This mean no disorder because I had small cities. If they grew too big (like to 4) I would starve them until they died. I didn't build any buildings ever and I just kept spreading and killing. Oh about my pattern. I had a special naming system for my cities. My first city would be capital. Then I would make A1. All the nearby cities would be A2, A3 etc.. Cities built in a different direction would become B1, B2, etc... Each island would get another letter. This allowed me to know exactlly where each of my cities was. It was also fun to rename captured cities into the system. I sure like those chariots. I also made a complete system of roads covering almost every square. I was like a disease. I guess I sort of got of topic but oh well.
Glak	posted 02-24-99 12:26 PM ET oh I forgot to say why I didn't use a pattern. Since I had such small cities I could pack them in tightly, sometimes with just one square between them. All that really mattered was getting 2-3 squares of good land plus the city spot. I wouldn't want to waste land by spacing my cities so far apart. Actually one time I made a giant city complex where every city bordered several other cities. It was a small island and I guess I needed to make a lot of units. I think that was my first time playing emperor.
Ender4000	posted 02-24-99 12:32 PM ET I've found seperating all cities by 3 squares is optimum for me. They still have room to grow to size 7 easily, you can always support any city from another city in 1 turn with a road and enemy troops have problems getting to the inner cities. I think SMACs tech tree moves too quickly to use your Mongel civ strat Glak, though I could be wrong .
will	posted 02-24-99 12:48 PM ET I've also read in another thread that SMAC is engineered to deter this strategy, which is occasionally referred to as the "Mongol horde." There's a step function where at certain points, adding a new city will dramatically increase discontent. At Thinker level, I believe the magic number is ten, at which point, you get one fewer content citizen per city than you otherwise would. There may be another penalty at a higher level, but I haven't gotten there yet. Although I don't follow Afterburner's grid system, I often use naming conventions to keep from getting city names confused on large maps. I typically pick a letter at random to name my capital. I'll use the same letter for other cities in the same region (as defined by rivers, coastline, peninsulas, or islands. As I add new regions, I move along the alphabet. That way, cities that begin with the same letter are in the same area, which makes it easier to use the go-to command.
CEO Bernard	posted 02-24-99 01:14 PM ET I wouldn't call this moronic. I try to follow a similar pattern, but only if the city site is decent, otherwise I will (regretfully mind you) throw off the pattern ("Heretic! Burn him! Burn HIM!"). Although this makes me think that you should create your own faction called "The Geometricists". Too bad you couldn't make base placement an enforcable rule.
Glak	posted 02-24-99 03:29 PM ET Heh heh funny thing that they call it the Mongol strategy. Ghenghis Khan has been my hero ever since I read a book about the mongols. I've only played the demo but so far I've noticed that the resource model is different enough (cities seem more productive and buildings are cheaper) that other strategies might work fine. Also being forced into having taxes (I think it is called economy) must help you buy buildings. I know about the maximum practical city thing. They had that in both civ games also. That actually favors this strategy, at least in the civ games. Since your cities are small you only need a defense unit to keep the peasents in line. If you try to make big cities you can't possibly use only police but you have to resort to making buildings. In civ1/civnet all buildings were worthless. I would occasionally build wonders if I didn't need any troops. Civ2 was a little more balanced and I would make buildings sometimes and I would even let my cities get up to 4! Oh and here is why in both civ games (and probably in AC) small cities are better: Glak's two cities: A1: two people, three resource squares being worked, can support two soldiers (despotism of course), one soldier stays home the other fights. A2: three people, four resource squares, supports three people, one at home, two extra A1+A2: 5 people, 7 squares (the best squares in the area), has three people in the field Someone else: city of 5, works 6 squares, can support 5 people, has 3 unhappy people. Two people in the field. So overall you get more resources and have more soldiers with more small cities. In fact it is even better in real life because you are able to exploit a larger area for resources (thus getting a higher average number of resources pre square being worked) and have a much faster growth rate. Of course this is in the civ games, AC is probably a little different. I won't know until I buy it and I don't think that I should get it until spring break. From what I've heard planet doesn't like big cities. Oh and I looked in one of those rules files, orbital whatevers don't cause eco damage.
Dan Scheltema	posted 02-24-99 08:09 PM ET I haven't found that Planet especially dislikes big cities. She does dislike big mineral production. I keep my eco damage at zero (Hey, I am "Green" according to the questionaire so I don't fight my inclinations!) and she rarely picks on me. The many small cities is a good conquer the world strategy, but I'm not convinced it's a better development strategy. When one city of 25 total cities is producing more labs and energy then all the rest combined...
DanS	posted 02-24-99 09:00 PM ET They also call it the Infinite Cities Trick (ICT). At Deity level in Civ2, however, this strategy is impossible due to the first "step" being 8 cities. Clearly unworkable. In Emporer, it is 16 cities, so this strategy may work with a certain degree of success. At lower levels, this strategy dominates. But again, don't try to bring that strategy to bear in Civ2 w/Deity. You'll get your clock cleaned. Afterburner should create a faction called the "Geometricians" or the "Anal Surveyors."
Glak	posted 02-24-99 09:43 PM ET Actually it works best at harder difficulty levels. Large cities can't cope with all the disorder (your two first guys are free I think, then everyone is mean) but small ones have no trouble. After a certain point I would cut back on cities but there was nothing wrong with going over the limit because I had to have a defense unit anyway so it would counteract the trouble makers. I always played emperor (this is civnet, we played a lot of hotseat games with 3-5 players) so anyone who tried to make big cities would be crippled by rebellion. In order to stop rebellions they had to make trashy things like temples. Having temples meant having taxes which meant lowering your science rate. I am quite sure that in civnet this was the only viable strategy. Large cities don't make more stuff either. Large cities are forced to work less valuable land and don't have a good squares worked to population ratio. Since each person in the town required food you really started losing out. You also started losing trade to corruption. In single player the large city strategy was viable if you went democracy and went for the space program. However in multiplayer you can't do that because if you aren't ready to fight I'll just eat you. Well I suppose most of you think that I went against the spirit of the game but I had a lot of fun, so did my friends. We really played the diplomacy part of the game too. I would often hire my hordes of chariots out for mercenary work. Claiming and defending certain areas was also fun. I hope that AC lives up to the civ tradition but I fear that they didn't put any work at all into the combat model. From what I read their doesn't seem to be any bonus for high ground of for hiding in the forest.
DanS	posted 02-24-99 09:52 PM ET On deity it is [bold]IMPOSSIBLE[/bold] to do the ICT, plain and simple. After 7 cities, your first pop goes angry, rather than staying content. So you have to send along company with your settler. Also after 7, it slides the scale for your whole empire, so you have to build a warrior for each city. After only 14 or whatever, you're talking major, major drag. I would challenge you to try it out on deity. You'll get your clock cleaned. I would assume that SMAC has the same sliding scale.
Glak	posted 02-24-99 10:23 PM ET Yeah I never played civ2 as much, it was kind of boring and too peaceful for me. I also never got the multiplayer version. Of course fundamentalism seems broken somehow, I mean no one is ever unhappy? Those spies also seemed a little too powerful, at least against the computer. I just poisoned everything until it was at one and then bought it. I don't recall what level I played civ2 at, I don't think I played diety much. Well I guess I will give it a try over the weekend. I'll play how I normally do and then I'll write down how big each city is and so forth and how many I have. Of course I think that I would let my cities get into the "big" numbers like 4 on that game. Oh and about the number of cities. I think you are overestimating how many cities I make. I make a lot, especially early on but I stop making cities after a while. I just think that given the choice between 15 big cities and 20 small cities that I would go for the small guys. Well I guess I will civ2 play this weekend, I'll give my report. Heh heh, I spend so much time here on this thread talking about a game I don't play anymore. I wonder if I even have civ2 on this hard drive.
DanS	posted 02-24-99 10:54 PM ET Yes, I would be interested in your report. I have timelined this strategy with the Chinese roughly 10 times (it was about 2 months ago), so I don't think you can do it (is that enough of a challenge for you? ). Good luck. p.s. I heard someone say that they successfully used the ICT, but toward the end of the game they had luxuries at 80% or something just so his empire wouldn't go into chaos.
DanS	posted 02-24-99 10:56 PM ET BTW: humans tend to be more peaceful than the AI (I was surprised), so if you were bored with Civ2, Civ2 multiplayer would be a real snoozer for you.
Rathenn	posted 02-25-99 12:00 AM ET Afterburner, you are not alone. I too used this exact pattern in Civ1&2 for the sheer efficiency of it's land use. I became obsessed with obtaining the highest population possible and so this was the best way. And boy, was i annoyed when after 320,000,000 people the game wouldn't register any more citizens even if i knew they were there. And i really liked the fact that a city of size 1 would have 10,000 citizens, size 2 30,000, size 3 60,000, size 4 100,000 etc. (adding 10,000 then 20,000 then 30,000 etc.). Pity that isn't the case anymore in SMAC.
Rathenn	posted 02-25-99 12:00 AM ET Afterburner, you are not alone. I too used this exact pattern in Civ1&2 for the sheer efficiency of it's land use. I became obsessed with obtaining the highest population possible and so this was the best way. And boy, was i annoyed when after 320,000,000 people the game wouldn't register any more citizens even if i knew they were there. And i really liked the fact that a city of size 1 would have 10,000 citizens, size 2 30,000, size 3 60,000, size 4 100,000 etc. (adding 10,000 then 20,000 then 30,000 etc.). Pity that isn't the case anymore in SMAC. Rathenn
CaptComal	posted 02-25-99 12:29 AM ET Afterburner... Again ... you are not alone ... my buddy at work who introduced me to CIV 1 also made grids of where he would build his cities to maximize land use without overlap. One more thing... About those small "holes" of open space ... now in SMAC you can just put Supply Crawlers on them and they can "convoy" a resource to the city! That way there is ABSOLUTELY NO WASTED SPACE AT ALL. Best Regards, CaptComal
Arnelos	posted 02-25-99 01:20 AM ET Hehehe. Afterburner, Go read my recomended strategy for the Peacekeeper faction (I don't remember which thread). My strategy in Civ, Civ2, and SMAC is pretty much the same. It was most effective in Civ2. I call it "snowballing": STEP 1: You have the inner cities build settlers who build more cities who build settlers who build more cities. NOTE: Build cities in a pattern that optimally uses all spaces without overlap. HOWEVER, it is better to overlap city spaces rather than leaving un-used spaces. Make sure to utilize EVERY SINGLE AVAILABLE SQUARE if at all possible. STEP 2: When central cities in the empire are no longer on the border, build ONE settler for the purpose of starting at the capital and building up infrastructure. Have these cities now build city improvements and Wonders. STEP 3: As the number of cities no longer producing settlers spreads, send their one non-city-building settler on a road-building mission toward the capital area. Build infrastructure out from the middle. *CONTINUE STEP 3 UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPLETELY UPGRADED EVERY SQUARE YOU CAN, TAKING ALL AVAILABLE LAND STEP 4: Once you have Railroad and/or Supermarkets, go back to the capital and build railroads and farms starting from the center with your ARMIES OF SETTLERS. Continue this until you have totally run out of things to build up. STEP 5: At this point, you have TONS of engineers with little to do. Have then sleep in your cities and send them around as damage control for pollution or to quickly build up conqured city areas once they are secured. That strategy is INCREDIBLY effective in Civ2. That type of strategy I have found is most effective in SMAC with the Peacekeepers (which I agree with ideologically anyway ). Arnelos Peacekeeper Keeper of Wisdom
Afterburner	posted 02-25-99 06:59 AM ET Arnelos sez: >My strategy in Civ, Civ2, and SMAC is pretty >much the same. It was most effective in >Civ2. > >I call it "snowballing": Sounds almost exactly like my strategy. My capital city builds a warrior to scout around and then either a warrior or a phalanx for defense of the city. Then it starts cranking out settlers. All new cities build one unit for defense and then start cranking out settlers. Each city keeps cranking out settlers until the distance the settler would have to travel becomes prohibitive (usually more than two city radii away). The last settler becomes the terrain improver for that city, and the city begins producing facilities. Note that, with this strategy, Leonardo Da Vinci's Workshop is an absolute requirement. I always build that Wonder not to boost my military, but to instantly convert my (inevitable horde of) settlers into Engineers. Yours, Afterburner