Camp Placement Strategy

GhengisFarb™ · June 21, 2003, 16:26

The DTRATEGY SERIES
Dtrategy Threads
Volume One - Camping Placement by GhengisFarb
Volume Two - PreFabricated Settlement by GhengisFarb

Dtrategic Exercises
Exercise One - City Placement Scenario by Panzer32

Volume One - Dtrategic Guide to Camping and Zenning
(Part of the ongoing Dtrategy Series from the Glory of War)

This will probably be of little use to many people but since a few have commented on my city placement "camp" system I decided I'd put it all down in a step by step illustration.

Basically this came about from me wanting to absolutely minimize corruption and maximize city production for Diety level and Multiplayer. The added kicker is that in Multiplayer the minimization of land use gives you an artificially low score compared to others and your opponents tend to discount you as a minor threat.

After I build my first city I establish the camps. The system supports up to four but sometimes there's a mountain or water tile in the way so it doesn't always work out perfect. They go right in the "Achilles Corners", you know those nasty little corners where the enemy can move his two movement units into your territory and still have a movement left to attack.

GhengisFarb™ · June 21, 2003, 16:28

The first thing a Camp does is build a barracks. Typically I only use the four camps as construction bases. They build units to establish the empire and that's about it. Since no city can utilize more than 12 tiles until Sanitation they tend to exist until I build Sewer Systems in the first ring of cities and then I disband the camps. This gives each city in the first city ring 18 tiles to itself once the camps are gone.

GhengisFarb™ · June 21, 2003, 16:33

The ring of cities goes around the camps and fits into the camps' Achilles Corners and five tiles directly out from the capital city. This gives you four camps and 8 cities all with exactly 12 tiles each.

The four corner cities are 4.5 tiles away from the capital, the four other cities are 4 tiles away from the central capital, and the four camps are 1.5 tiles away from the central capital for distance corruption calculation purposes.

trickey · June 21, 2003, 17:46

Hmm, that is very interesting, Ghengis. I'm definatly goin to give this a try in my next game.

How do you find it works? It looks like it would be a good starting strategy for a warmonger. Five cities suffering from no corruption at all could really be able to pump out some units.

Btw, are you playing a mod? Cause last time I checked, the Greeks had hoplites, not the Germans

Dominae · June 21, 2003, 18:13

Each of the "City-Sites" on the last screenshot would be better off going one diagonal tile inward toward the capital. This would prevent unused tiles once the camps get disbanded.

The camp idea is nice, but as with all city placement strategies it depends heavily on the local geography. If it's near-optimal as in the examples above, then certainly the method presented works well. But in most other games things are not quite as pretty (unless one restarts until a "suitable" map is obtained).

In my experience, the best way to use camps is to figure out how many tiles are going to be unused in the near-future in a certain area, and if it's around 3-4 good ones (Grassland, etc.) I'll plop a temporary city in there. Clearly the areas closer to the capital are used first, to avoid Corruption. No pattern, really, just an evaluation of what I can do with what land I've been given.

Still, thumbs-up GhengisFarb for posting something like this: it forces players to rethink their city placement strategy.

Dominae

vmxa1 · June 21, 2003, 18:20

Yes it looks good, but I can't remember getting a chunk of land that looks like that. Also you are kissing off any coastal power house cities and the early wonders that go with them.
I applaud the effort and appreciate the idea.

GhengisFarb™ · June 21, 2003, 18:55

It does make for a good warmongering strategy. The central city can only utilize 12 tiles leaving you eight for manipulation of the camps which then filter the slack onto the ring of cities, and yes this is an optimal illustration, but that actually was a map generated by the unaltered game engine.

I've found it somewhat uncanny how often the citysites in this system hit river tiles. I almost wonder if it has to do with whatever system the game uses to generate the rivers.

This is a mod I used. Its the one we set up for the GoW PBEM #2 where the eight players chose their civs and then all the UUs for the non-played civs were given the Hidden Nationality ability and made accessible for all.

PeaSoup · June 22, 2003, 05:22

I was just going to comment on how your capital as well as all four camp sites have access to river tiles,

for the map generator if that was randomly generated

GhengisFarb™ · June 22, 2003, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by PeaSoup
I was just going to comment on how your capital as well as all four camp sites have access to river tiles,

for the map generator if that was randomly generated

I'm not kidding in the previous post when I said that happens alot. Four out of the last five games I played allowed half the city sites to be adjacent to rivers. Now I do play with the Wet Setting because I like rivers but it is kinda weird how that works out.

Even some of the last PBEMs I joined have the camps all on rivers.

DaveMcW · June 22, 2003, 10:45

That location for Camp Chucky is horrible. You can't use the wheat until you build a library or temple. It would be much better off one tile north.

lmtoops · June 22, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW
That location for Camp Chucky is horrible. You can't use the wheat until you build a library or temple. It would be much better off one tile north.

Chucky does not exist for growth. The camp is for unit production and to minimize corruption. If the campl is moved, you increase the corruption.

I think your better off leaving the wheat for your next city.

Theseus · June 22, 2003, 12:52

Question re both "farbing" and "ralphing": At what point do the camps get abandoned?

Master Zen · June 22, 2003, 15:05

I always keep my camps until sanitation, and still perhaps a teeny weeny bit longer.

Anyway, I still don't like the fact that the ring of "core" cities is too far away, you are wasting too many tiles in that regard especially consdiering the odds of them getting rivers is not 100% and also that even if you have rivers, it'll take a while before they get over size 6 (and whether you actually want them to get over size 6 at the very beginning.)

I've been playing with a hybrid system, it's basically a 3-tile/4-tile/camp system (please don't end up calling it "Zenning"...) . I have tried it twice in SP and both times I've achieved Ultimate Power in the middle ages. I have just begun this in another PBEM which got started last week so it'll take a while before results show.

The premise is this: on standard maps, I have found Ralphing not to be clearly superior to 3-tile. 3-tile on the other hand does not separate core cities from military cities. However, a camp system with 3-tile is impossible.

Thus, my solution was to make the first "ring" of cities around the capital with 4-tile spacing (notation note: 4-tile equals 3 spaces between cities). That allows 2 camp cities (perhaps even 3 if you're lucky) in the inner ring especially if you plan on using your capital as a settler-pump (what I usually do). However, after the inner ring is done, all other cities are pure 3-tile. Why? Defensive purposes. No other city placement offers the defensive benefits that 3-tile does (well 2-tile...

) and in MP, you will NEED defense.

If anyone is interested, I'll post some screenshots later on...

BRC · June 22, 2003, 15:09

Yeah MZ, please post.

Theseus · June 22, 2003, 15:14

Zenning it is.

Master Zen · June 22, 2003, 15:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Zenning it is.

Damn you!

ok, lemme find some shots...

Theseus · June 22, 2003, 15:24

Just kidding.

I do like the placement strategy though... it's a very good evolutionary step from 3-tile, and also takes advantage of the Palace's culture.

Master Zen · June 22, 2003, 15:44

Ok, to start, WHY did I come up with this?

The idea was to combine the benefits of all the good city placement strategies in both a SP and MP environment. As we all know, city placement is not as simple as "this style is the best". Placement patters vary greatly in effectiveness depending on map size, # of civs and whether it is SP or MP.

For Single Player:

It is well known that the AI pretty much sucks at attacking. Therefore you are much more at ease in having a relaxed placement scheme. Hell, even OCP works in Monarch. Thus, defense is not really much of a priority in anything other than Deity and perhaps a very unlucky Empreror start. 3-tile in SP works very well on standard maps, Ralphing, IMO is the best by far on huge maps. 4-tile also works well, and if you can squeeze in some camp cities all the better.

For Multi-Player

Defense suddenly becomes a major priority as you never know if and when your neighbor will strike, and if he does, he will do it much more intelligently than the AI ever will. Thus, a tightly packed placement is best. 3-tile offers the distinct advantage of being able to move any stack between cities in 1 turn (minus rivers). That means it is very easy to which a large defensive force and a counterattacking force depending on the focal point of your enemy's attack all the while being safe inside a city. 3-tile then, IMO, is a no-brainer in MP.

Now, if you are going for a VERY aggressive start, then GF's placement seems ideal. However, not all PBEMs start with super-aggressive starts, in experiecne with PBEMs, more than half have been "friendly but wary" starts. Thus, building up your empire becomes a priority.

The juggling act

You have three goals in the beginning: REX, build, and defend. Unless you have an incredibly fortunate start, it is hard not to compromise on these three. Do you REX like crazy and leave your empire defended (I was just chatting with a friend who is kicking another guy's ass in a PBEM after he went REXlessly too big). Do you build up but forgoe the advantages of more cities? Do you REX and defend and build up an army but build nothing in your cities? Not a good idea in the long run.

Decisions...decisions...

My city placement strategy seeks to make a delicate balancing act on these three dilemas. Mind you, as I said, I have only used it twice so far, it shows promise, but I humbly accept criticism and suggestions, in fact, greatly appreciate it. Who knows, perhaps i've just gotten lucky, or perhaps it really is a cool system. Only time (and you guys) will tell.

The premise

The idea here is to make camp cities (for building up), have a productive core (minimize corruption) and be able to REX "safely" that is, knowing that you'll have troops to defend your expansion.

The strategy therefore is to build an "inner ring" of cities which are 4-tiled. This gives the empire an optimal size since your capital will expand in 10 turns. It also gives more "breathing" room of unused tiles. This breathing room will be used up by the 2 military camps which you will build inside the inner ring (actually I'd advise the first camp to be your second city, then your 2nd core city, then your 2nd camp, then the rest of your core cities). Camps simply have barracks built and then begin cranking out units. Since they will be close to your capital (1 or 2 tiles away) they will not suffer corruption and can get the barracks built very quickly.

After that, all cities built outside the inner ring (you don't really need to close the ring at all, depending on geography, perhaps you have your back to a pole or an ocean) are stricktly 3-tile. No discussion, no debate. Make the enemy be at odds to break your border as it expands.

Sound nice?

Master Zen · June 22, 2003, 15:54

This was a rough draft plan I made up for a succession game we are playing in the spanish forum.

Our start however, despite being a very good settler pump, is not very favorable for squeezing in 2 camps in it's radius. But still, not how all but 1 of the cities around it (planned or built) are 4-tiled apart, but each of these is spaced 3-tiled from each other.

so, in summary:
[i]the inner-ring is sparated by 3-tiles from the capital (4-tile spacing), whereas each ring city is actually separated 2-tiles from each other (3-tile). Disclaimer: assuming ideal geography.

Master Zen · June 22, 2003, 16:02

A more "pure" approach to the style.

This shot is from my core in a game Arrian posted in the ultimate power thread a few weeks back.

Note how I have 2 camp cities in my capital's radius (Utica and Leptis Magna) as well as another camp (Cirtra) besides an inner-ring city.

I'd push for 4 camps as ideal. That means you must give the inner ring a bit of space for this (i.e. not have ALL inner ring cities 3-tiled from each other so that two of those cities can accomodate a camp).

GhengisFarb™ · June 23, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by PeaSoup
I was just going to comment on how your capital as well as all four camp sites have access to river tiles,

for the map generator if that was randomly generated

Another factor I forgot to mention was that the quality of the map you play has a lot to do with the size of map you choose.
Any size below Large and sometimes even Large produces crappy, choppy looking maps.

To get a true map that the generator was designed to create, the larger the map size the better. If you don't believe me go to the editor and generate a few Huge maps and look at them.

Dominae · June 23, 2003, 12:17

I agree with the "smaller maps are choppy" statement, but this is not that same thing as saying that "larger maps have ideal start locations". You can easily get stuck in a sea of Hills on a Huge map if you set the Age to 3 billion years.

Dominae

GhengisFarb™ · June 23, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
I agree with the "smaller maps are choppy" statement, but this is not that same thing as saying that "larger maps have ideal start locations". You can easily get stuck in a sea of Hills on a Huge map if you set the Age to 3 billion years.

Dominae

No size is necessary perfect for every start position it generates, but the huge maps tend to have far less lousy start postions than the smaller ones.

Besides this debate over differences in Map Size and the Generator is already being discussed in a separate thread.

Master Zen · June 24, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

No size is necessary perfect for every start position it generates, but the huge maps tend to have far less lousy start postions than the smaller ones.

Besides this debate over differences in Map Size and the Generator is already being discussed in a separate thread.

or at least, there's more land to compensate if you do get a crappy start.

I don't like huge maps because my PC is just too slow for them

. But as far as city placement goes, I think Ralphing is the best on huge maps.

TheArsenal · June 26, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
This will probably be of little use to many people but since a few have commented on my city placement "camp" system I decided I'd put it all down in a step by step illustration.

It may be of little use to people on this forum who generally skew disproportionately to the more experienced players (and who crunch numbers more thoroughly than average players), but players of my skill level will find this to be of great help.

City placement being one of the weaker aspects of my game, after reading this thread I started a new game (pangaea, large, 10 civs, regent) implementing the camp placement strategy. Decent terrain allowed me to place camps at each of the four Achilles Corners. The added bonus being my capital was close enough the northern most pole of the landmass meant that only my south, southwest, and southeast borders were exposed to non-naval threats - meaning all units produced from Camp Northeast and Camp Northwest could be moved to the southern exposed borders. I was also lucky enough to be able to use nearly this exact city site placement, with a single exception due to a mountain range.

It is early in the game yet, but the impact of this strategy at this level is immediately felt and, IMO, profound. I am on a (non-culturally linked) landmass with the closest civs being the Zulu, Persians, Romans, Germans, Babylonians and Chinese. A war map, whether I want it or not (I want it). I have already repelled a Zulu sneak attack and taken one of their cities, in part, because ring settling makes defensive placement far more effective and obvious.

I am curious to see how this initial placement (I am at 10 cities or so) plays out for the rest of the game as I expand.

And: the concentrated settling does seem to depress your score. (I can post screen shots later if anyone is remotely interested). I am near the bottom score wise, and that in no way is possible.

Master Zen · June 27, 2003, 01:06

Speaking of screenshots, here's a "textbook" definition of Zenning.

The huts are the camp cities while the victory points are the other cities. Note that this particular pattern has the camps NW and SE of the capital but if you see closely it can accomodate them at whatever point you wish depending on geography.

GhengisFarb™ · June 27, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by TheArsenal
It is early in the game yet, but the impact of this strategy at this level is immediately felt and, IMO, profound.

Great, its nice to know when something you posted was of benefit to someone.

TheArsenal · June 27, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Great, its nice to know when something you posted was of benefit to someone.

Sure. Thanks for posting it.

My take has always been that by the very nature of being on these boards, and being so interested in mechanics of the game, the people here think far more so in those terms than the "average" player who have a lesser civ tradition - for example, the good number of my friends that play. And believe me, the "average" player is challenged by Regent even Warlord, but if you look around at advice, close to none is geared that way. So any postings that force one to think about the mechanics of the game (corruption, workable tile spacing, etc.) and can be applied to any level, is a good one.

Panzer32 · June 27, 2003, 14:17

Could someone please link to an explanation/example of ralphing? I've heard it used alot but have yet to see an example.

Master Zen · June 27, 2003, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Panzer32
Could someone please link to an explanation/example of ralphing? I've heard it used alot but have yet to see an example.

Bascially it is OCP with military camps 3-tiled north and south of each city. For it to fit, the corners of the radius of the core cities are overlapped once (that means each city has 20 tiles instead of 21).

If you want I'll try and find a pic for it...

It's pretty usueful on large maps where OCPing nets you hugely productive cities after the industrial age but you get the advantages of a lot of military camps to go with it.