RCP question

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 15:27

Ok, I admit I did not use camps or RCP. I have been aware of those concepts and figured they worked well.
I know that camps can be very effective, I am not so sure about RCP.
This is not an attempt show any short comings or anything like that. I am interested in understanding.
So I tried a test. Now this test was probably flawed, but I could only do what I could do.
I cranked up a game and tried to make a ring with 3 then 6.
That is CxxC in direct lines from the capitol and CxC on the diagional. I then played as usual. At 50AD I stopped with 16 cities.
I started over with OCP and stopped with 13 cities.
I compared them and found they were quite close. The OCP was better in that it had two early wonders. The problem I see with the RCP is that it will not be able to build wonders and will stay quite weak for the inner ring as they do not have many squares to draw from.
The capitol in OCP has no such problem. I also started to run into placement problem as this happen to be on a peninsula.

So my question is would it be better to have used a 4 and 8 ring.
Does being on a penninsula negate the use of RCP One of the values of the 3 ring was to be able to defend and attack quickly. This is not of any value if you do not have but one immediate neighbor. So does if change if you are in an area that has more direct contacts? If so then, what do you do? I mean you will not know before you have committed to the RCP that you are in such a location? I suspect that camps will also have to be down graded, if you are in a spot that will not have direct contact, but a bit less of a problem.

So I would like to hear what the logic is from those that use and understand rings. I know we have a few here. Again this is posed as an opportunity for me to learn, not to confont.
Thanks...

Oh is it worth the effort to make the run with say a 4 ring and a 7 or 8 second ring? Does the level of difficulty factor into it? I used Monarch to leave the setting out of it. Would it be more effective if I use Emp?

Harovan · October 17, 2003, 15:34

You don't have to build at every possible ring position. At the countrary, the less you build, the more effective will be the next ring. I don't like 3-rings, it's too close to my capital for my taste. If I have enough space, I usually build 4, 8, 12 rings.

conmcb25 · October 17, 2003, 15:39

I was a doubting thomas as well.

I tried a 3 ring on a very cramped map and a four ring on a more open map and was impressed with the lack of corruption.

But then I did not do a diredt comparison with OCP.

Hmmmmmm

Can someone provide a link to an OCP discussion? I want to make sure I have that concept correct. Thanks

Cort Haus · October 17, 2003, 16:14

I used a 4-7-11 ring on the AU210 (large map) and was impressed with the corruption improvement. I got 2 shields straight out of about my 13th city, which is not usual. The '7' was determined by an advanced tribe, and the 11 was determined by a hot resource location. It worked well.

Theseus tried a 3-ring in the same game and found it too cramped, I think.

I like the 3-spacing for defensive power though. Build a Vet Pike in the core and it can be at a remote border city the same turn by shuttling Pikes from city to city.

Arrian · October 17, 2003, 16:19

I've been using RCP lately, but only with 1 ring (often that's all you can really manage, due to geography) at 4 from the capitol. After that, I ignore RCP.

That first ring at 4 can be pretty damn powerful. It's the early leverage you get from having multiple cities classified as city #1 for corruption that makes RCP good. If you take that initial boost and parlay it into a strong position (say, oh, kicking the everlivingshit out of a neighbor or two), then it's worth it.

-Arrian

Arrian · October 17, 2003, 16:22

conmcb25:

As I recall, "OCP" stands for "Optimal City Placement" which was coined by purists who don't like overlap. It isn't realy optimal, but nevermind that.

I have a hunch that vxma1 isn't talking about zero overlap, but rather cities spaced such that the overlap is the minimal possible without having tiles fall completely outside city radii. This usually means 1-2 tiles overlap.

-Arrian

Datajack Franit · October 17, 2003, 16:26

Tsk tsk do you play monarch?

Arrian · October 17, 2003, 16:32

Yes I do, mostly. Some Emperor. I've won up there, but it isn't as much fun.

-Arrian

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I have a hunch that vxma1 isn't talking about zero overlap, but rather cities spaced such that the overlap is the minimal possible without having tiles fall completely outside city radii. This usually means 1-2 tiles overlap.

-Arrian

I forget if it was a no overlap, but most likely it was a size 19. This may not be OCP for all, but it is close enough. I would expect some cities may have had zero overlap, due to the land, but most used 19 tiles with 2 tiles over lapped. What I would do is to find the spot for size 19 and use if unless there was a reason not to do it. The main reason, would be if having an extra space or two of unused tiles allowed me to get a border to cover access or a key resource or luxs. That sort of thing.
Remember this was only at Monarch.

Looks like this:

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You don't have to build at every possible ring position. At the countrary, the less you build, the more effective will be the next ring. I don't like 3-rings, it's too close to my capital for my taste. If I have enough space, I usually build 4, 8, 12 rings.

This is what I was looking for, some clues as to how it is best used and if it should be used. So I guess I will have to make another pass with either a 3 ring, minus a few location or a 4 ring.

In a 3 ring, if you drop a few cities, you end up with the same number as the OCP. Many of these will have fewer tiles, but a some what better (less) corruption. I am not sure how that would stack up. This location will have very few second ring cities with a 4 - 8 ring, the land is not that large.
I actually replaced one or two tiles in case I should attempt a 4 ring, so it could have a valid location. I know this will not be a fair comparison, but it is just to get the the jist of it.

I attached the map for any that wants to eye ball the map.

It is labeled as sav, but is a bix.

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I used a 4-7-11 ring on the AU210 (large map) and was impressed with the corruption improvement. I got 2 shields straight out of about my 13th city, which is not usual. The '7' was determined by an advanced tribe, and the 11 was determined by a hot resource location. It worked well.

Theseus tried a 3-ring in the same game and found it too cramped, I think.

I like the 3-spacing for defensive power though. Build a Vet Pike in the core and it can be at a remote border city the same turn by shuttling Pikes from city to city.

I suspect that a 3 ring in a emperor game with several neighbors, makes this a much better plan. I would wonder if using camps would be better still, in that game. I do not know, only asking.
So it looks like a 4 with 7 or 8 second may be a viable method.

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 17:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Tsk tsk do you play monarch?

Not sure who this was addressed to, Arrain responded, but since he never said anything about the level and I did, I am guessing it was for me.

So if it was, I am not sure what you mean by play on? I play on all levels at any time. I have a contact that I am helping with a chieftain game. I load games from here that are at all levels.
I tend to play emperor on my own games, but will play deity ever few months, to remind myself why I do not find it as much fun.

This is not a game perse, it is a test and is not intended to be palyed to a conclusion, just to a point where it can be compared to another run. I used 50AD as that was long enough to not get to be too much time. I used Monarch as I did not want to have a higher or a lower level cloud things. Monarch has very little bonus for the AI and is close to neutral. Lower ones give a bonus to the player and higher extra to the AI. I hope that answer the question, if it was directed to me.

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 18:08

The attachment for the pat19 is a bmp. It is meant for use in paint where you blow it up by 800% and drop a grid over it. Then it is very easy to match it to tiles.
I went ahead and made a blow up of it as a jpg:

vmxa1 · October 17, 2003, 18:11

So you can see 19 tiles to work in addition to the capitol. You have no tiles that cannot be worked. Now this is perfect for all of the people that want to automate their workers, since you do not have tiles that will never be worked. I would of course advise against automating workers.

Theseus · October 17, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
(say, oh, kicking the everlivingshit out of a neighbor or two)

That's why I friggin' love Arrian.

Serious response:

I have had limited experience with RCP, but it's been very positive.

That first ring seems to be best at 4/4.5, stuffing in all cities possible (AUSG101). That's pretty powerful, with or without camps.

That does forego the 3-tile defensive advantage though, so in AU210 I tried a 3 initial ring... I realized too late (see my upcoming end-of-Industrial DAR) that I should have treated the cities at 2 tiles NESW as camps. Execute that properly, and my guess is this is the most powerful opening possible (given terrain constraints).

[YES, you read it here first!!

Strict initial ring 3-RCP, Ralph/Zen out the NESW camps, second ring prolly at 4 tile from the first (not for corruption but for tile access), and we've got a winner... until C3C, that is.]

I don;t really bother with RCP outside of the first ring, and am still confused about what to do with the whole set up when the FP and a Palace jump come into play.

asleepathewheel · October 17, 2003, 20:04

I must've missed all the early talks of RCP and have just noticed it fairly recently. But I'm grateful that I only found out with a few weeks til its gone in Conquerors. It seems like more of a burden to me, knowing that I could have a more efficient empire, but at a price of feeling for the land. I want to eyeball the land and figure out the best defensive and productive locations. I do a lot of ralphing. (it keeps the weight down) I feel the pull of the min/max with this and I'm torn. Thank god they took out IFE quickly.

to Firaxis for fixing it.

Master Zen · October 19, 2003, 03:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
I don;t really bother with RCP outside of the first ring, and am still confused about what to do with the whole set up when the FP and a Palace jump come into play.

My fave is a 4/4.5 ring around the capital with usually 2 hopefully 3 (i'm playing a PBEM with FOUR!!!) camps (remember, the thing about the camps is that they get good productive land, if they are poor about production they are worthless, save the food for the settler/worker pumps). The camps are usually built at 2/2.5 although I am currently playing C3C beta game with the camps at 3/3.5 to good effect (that is they are 2-tiled not from the capital but from the inner ring).

However, I don't see why this setup does not forgo the defensive advantages of 3-tile since you can effectively 3-tile the inner ring between themselves. That is, 4-tile with respect to the capital, and 2-tile from the camps.

My general rule of thumb with rings after the inner one is simple: be flexible. That means don't RCP just for the sake of it since you might end up forgoing cities in more practical places. This means that your 2nd "ring", say 3-tiled from the inner ring can contain not one but perhaps two different city distances, usually 7/7.5 or 8/8.5. As you keep plopping more cities simply try and find good cities the same distance you have other cities.

This mentality helps when capturing cities. Say you just kicked the everliving crap out of your neighbor and captured distance 10, distance 9, and distance 12 cities. They are at good sites too. What do you do? Simply build all your next cities at any of those distances and you are effectively RCPing. Saves you a settler build from having to raze them and rebuild in an RCP way. I guess the best way to describe this technique would be "RCP backfilling".

Finally with regards to palace jumping and the FP, it really is not that hard if you follow a more-or-less strickt city placement style, be it 3-tile or 4-tile for example. Just try and get a feel of the continent as you are expanding, think of a good site that would make a good capital and jump there (and try to RCP a bit around it). By that time, strict RCPing should not be a priority since your empire will be large and you should be on your way to bigger and better things. RCP is best for the start which wreckless REXing can lead to corruption disasters, by the time you have 30+ cities, it really doesn't matter much, the best thing you can do is to try and build cities at distances you already have rather than build more and more perfectly placed rings.

With the FP there's a bit of a problem because of the famous FP corruption bug. If finally understood it well after reading some stuff at CFC. Bascially once you build the FP, you achieve rank 1 corruption for all cities which are closer to the FP than they are to the capital. This sounds a bit difficult to project at first (trust me, alexman explained it to me and I really didn't understand it until I saw a pic). The following threads at CFC should help:

this thread by Qitai explains the bug:

A Rank Corruption Discovery and Exploit to negate rank corruption

this is an EXCELLENT thread by SirPleb of the the bug in practice. Lots of pictures

SirPleb deity, with Palace rank exploit

hope this helps

Solomwi · October 19, 2003, 05:41

Quote:

That's why I friggin' love Arrian.

Apparently, I'm not the only one watching "Extreme History" with Roger Daltrey (History Channel).

In case I'm wrong, and assuming everyone knows that Roger Daltrey was the lead singer of The Who, you should all be watching it. If for no other reason because the promos are hilarious, with Roger chiming in after (voiceover) "on the History Channel"... "where the friggin' past comes alive" (voiceover) "In Roger's case, a little too alive." It is one of the most entertaining shows I've ever seen. Kind of like "The Osbournes" with class and educational value.

Master Zen · October 19, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
Apparently, I'm not the only one watching "Extreme History" with Roger Daltrey (History Channel).

In case I'm wrong, and assuming everyone knows that Roger Daltrey was the lead singer of The Who, you should all be watching it. If for no other reason because the promos are hilarious, with Roger chiming in after (voiceover) "on the History Channel"... "where the friggin' past comes alive" (voiceover) "In Roger's case, a little too alive." It is one of the most entertaining shows I've ever seen. Kind of like "The Osbournes" with class and educational value.

Damn, I'd love to see that show, too bad I've been cable-less for the last 2 months

asleepathewheel · October 19, 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi

Apparently, I'm not the only one watching "Extreme History" with Roger Daltrey (History Channel).

In case I'm wrong, and assuming everyone knows that Roger Daltrey was the lead singer of The Who, you should all be watching it. If for no other reason because the promos are hilarious, with Roger chiming in after (voiceover) "on the History Channel"... "where the friggin' past comes alive" (voiceover) "In Roger's case, a little too alive." It is one of the most entertaining shows I've ever seen. Kind of like "The Osbournes" with class and educational value.

Sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out. Now that I get directtv instead of crappy cable I actually get that channel and other interesting ones. Or at the very least I can tivo it and watch it when I have some free time.

vmxa1 · October 19, 2003, 15:21

I think that the advice on being flexible is on the money. I have started a pass as 4 ring and I hav tried to be flexible in the second ring.
I still have not done any work on camps, but expect to do some soon.
I suspect being flexible and not trying to jam all the cities I can into a 3 ting, would have worked better.
The other question I have been looking at is to jump out to do some second ring cities befor the first ring is finished.
I the situation I depict, it seems worht doing to cut of all access. This allow back filling a more leisurely pace.

In a 3 ring, you do not need any camps as such as you have any number of cities to use as camps. The other thing that you mentioned is easy to over look. The idea of using good production sites for the camps.
Thanks for the thoughts. I have read the threads, but will need many reading to get it to sink in.

vmxa1 · October 19, 2003, 15:23

BTW I have not watch the show as of yet. I am waiting for a topic that I have more interest in.

Tolwyn · October 20, 2003, 05:34

I isually play no RCP or OCP but in a more ICS kind a way

In the "land-grab-phase" I always build in a CxxC form in all directions. only exception is if there's a special bonus tile on a intended city tile. I found this extremely powerfull as this allows me to work almost all tiles within my borders.This still allows me to have Size 15+ cities in late game (keep a few cities small)
On monarch level I outbuild and outxpand the AI in ancient times. then build forbidden palace in the centre of your then empire,pick a neighbour,take his good land and good cities and build your palace there with hopefully help from a GL. And voila ...an very efficient empire

WackenOpenAir · October 20, 2003, 10:04

I use CRP.
i normally build my ring2 at distance 4 and 7.

you can use it to any extend you want to though.

if you would order all your cities from closest to capital to furthest away from it, you could have a list where all cities are at different distance. each city would than have like 4% more corruption than the one higher on the list.

city1, distance 2 : 20%
city2, distance 3 : 24%
city3, distance 4 : 28%
city4, distance 5 : 32%
...
etc.

now if you place 2 cities at the same distance, they will both be treathed as the closer one for waste. some examples.

city1, distance 2 : 20%
city2, distance 3 : 24%
city3, distance 3 : 24%
city4, distance 5 : 32 %
...

city1, distance 2 : 20%
city2, distance 2 : 20%
city3, distance 4 : 28%
city4, distance 4: 28%

in other words, you don't need to place all your cities in a ring in order to have a benefit, placing multiple cities always gives you a benefit. the more you place on the same distance, the greater the benefit though. the city ring is the highest benefit you can get.

actually i always placed my cities in a ring already before i ever read the article about it. while my rings were not 100% perfect, i did place far most of my cities at distance 4 - 4.5. simply because that is a good distance for a good empire where you can move between your cities, don't have to walk your settlers to far away and have enough squares for all your cities.

another advantage of the distance 4 is that you will have 2 places next to eachother to choose from for your cities to build. so you can always pich the best, and have a smaller chance of a not being able to build your city there.

the ring at distance 4 gives you up to 8 cities (9 with capital) that is my initial empire from witch i build my swords / horses / knights. I will build these cities ASAP.

they all have very low corruption (20% or so)

the next ring at distance 7, i usually build much much later. i prefer to build another ring at distance 4 around the forbidden first. this distance 7 ring has a corruption slightly over 50%

cities outside the 7 ring don't need to be in a ring, they are useless anyway. In fact, they are not worth building ever at all, they are only worth conquering (and i don't think your opponents will generally build them all at the same distance for you) the exeption is high food places, where you can use the city to rush build stuff in governments that alow so, or else rush buy workers / settlers with money.

i do not yet know what is exactly the idea behind camps yet. in my games EVERY city gets a barracks immeadiately, and every city builds military units unless something else is needed.

planetfall · October 20, 2003, 18:08

For one, I am glad RCP is going away. Taking time to figure out the diagonal distances was too annoying.

-- PF

vmxa1 · October 20, 2003, 19:58

I ran a test with the 4 ring and an 8 ring with a not strict placement. This is I did nto fill the diagional one in all cases and it has turned out far better than the others.

planetfall, there are several charts already layed out for the locations at all ranges.

Stuie · October 22, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen ....although I am currently playing C3C beta game with the camps at 3/3.5 to good effect (that is they are 2-tiled not from the capital but from the inner ring).

I thought they fixed RCP. Is there still some advantage to ring placement??? Or are you testing to make sure there is no advantage??? Or what??

pvzh · October 22, 2003, 16:33

Does anybody know how they fixed RCP?!

MrWhereItsAt · October 22, 2003, 20:39

All it can mean is that the formula for corruption is changing to be less reliant on the rank idea. Perhaps for cities placed at the same distance there is an additional rank factor based on size, or date of establishment, or perhaps if your 2nd. 3rd and 4th cities are placed equidistantly from your Palace they all get rank 4 - REALLY discouraging RCP!

We won't know for sure until C3C comes out and we can test it.

bongo · October 23, 2003, 03:34

They can still use rank for corruption calculations in the exact way they do today, the only thing they have to fix to remove the RCP-exploit is to make sure cities never have the same rank(very simple, oldest city gets lower rank, not-so-simple, the city that will benefit most for lower corruption gets lower rank)

edit: I tink the not-so-simple idea is the best as it will save you for the trouble of thinking of which city to build first.