How can I reduce the size of my empire?

Knecht · January 29, 2001, 15:11

I've been working my way up through the difficulty levels and just finished a game on the hard setting. It's still too easy, so I suppose I'll try very hard next. Because (as noted by many others in these forums) conquest seems far to easy, I find myself unable to resist the temptation to roll my bombers and tanks over the world. It just seems to be the most obvious (and viscerally satisfying) path to success. The problem is that my empire becomes huge long before I am able to graduate into a government that will accomodate so many cities. At the end of this last game I did make it to Virtual Democracy but still had over 70 cities and had to work like crazy to keep everybody happy (It also took forever to get to this government because I was spending so many resources keeping up the happiness quotient). I have tried to get rid of cities by starving them to death (maxing out the science specialists and losing silos and granaries), but this is too slow. I need to get rid of them soon after they're conquered but can't think of any way to do this (it did occur to me that I could give them away, but this seems counterproductive). Any suggestions?

Dale · January 29, 2001, 18:30

I usually get an ally and give the cities I don't want to him. Or you could mod the government text file to increase the number of cities you can have.

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

David Murray · January 29, 2001, 18:39

Try increasing the rations you give to your people to maximum? I think that reduces the food they have available for growth, and it also makes them more happy.

Alpha Wolf · January 29, 2001, 20:44

Thats the whole purpose of city limits is to slow down military expansion.

Doctor, doctor it hurts when I do this.....

------------------
History is written by the victor.

Gwap · January 30, 2001, 08:28

I agree, just conquer them, and give them to an enemy of your enemy. Especially if the recipient is tiny and the city is placed between those of his enemy.... WATCH EM GO!!!!

(does require diplomod though)

------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be

rixxe · January 30, 2001, 08:49

it seems to be like CTP 1, Very Hard level is like Chieftain level in CivII,..., playing against the AI in CTP 1-2 makes me laugh a lot !!

Knecht · January 30, 2001, 22:47

quote:

Originally posted by Alpha Wolf on 01-29-2001 07:44 PM
Thats the whole purpose of city limits is to slow down military expansion.

Doctor, doctor it hurts when I do this.....

That may be, but conquest remains one of the four methods of achieving victory in CTP2. While a constraint on the number of cities may be an impediment when pursuing that goal, it can’t (or shouldn’t) be an insurmountable obstacle. There ought, therefore, to be practical strategies for successfully dealing with this inevitable corollary of imperialism.

Alpha Wolf · January 31, 2001, 02:59

Depending on the year and type of government, its not realistic to conquer the world at any given point during the game. Personally I wish the government limits would start lower and increase with technological advances.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

January 31, 2001, 11:20

I agree Alpha Wolf.

wheathin · January 31, 2001, 12:10

Well, the government limits do increase with government type... and, a little used feature, the penalty for violating those limits can be softened: instead of a -1 penalty per city over the limit, it can be changed in govern.txt to a -.25 penalty.

Perhaps the solution is just more government types?

David Murray · February 1, 2001, 01:57

quote:

Originally posted by Alpha Wolf on 01-31-2001 01:59 AM
Depending on the year and type of government, its not realistic to conquer the world at any given point during the game. Personally I wish the government limits would start lower and increase with technological advances.

Hmm, how about the Roman Empire? It fell because of the excesses of its leaders, barbarian attacks and general corruption. Not because the people were unhappy that they were part of the most powerful nation in earth. It was a tyranny, but it sure had much more than the ten city limit.

Same with the modern-day Roman Empire...the former Soviet Union...again, it fell because of corruption and the excesses of its leaders.

I personally don't think that the people of a powerful empire should feel unhappy about it. If anything, they should be enthused with jingoistic pride.

Gwap · February 1, 2001, 06:55

Hmm, I think you'll find that the Roman Empire fell because it was overstretched... just too big and containing too many disparate peoples.

But I agree that conquering 100-150 cities (to gain victory) should be possible if difficult.

------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be

The Viceroy · February 1, 2001, 07:12

Personally, Ive just doubled the cities allowed under each government .. seems to help ..

However, I actually agree with AlphaWolf on this, the technology available to you, should dictate how many cities can exist under any given government .. In an IT age, it is quite feasable to run a Tyranny the size of the USSR .. but to do so in the age of the Romans, would take a lot more skill .. simply cos you don't have the infrastrucure available to maintain the command.

I think the missing link in the game is the ability to create colonial cities, where it still belongs to another civ, but you control what goes on .. As in India, during the British Raj .. It looks like CIV3 is looking at this ..

Giving cities to the enemy is all very good, but its not possible once you reach a certain amount of cities .. as the list stops, and your forced to give a city closer to home ..

------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

David Murray · February 1, 2001, 17:10

Actually, you'll find that the Romans were quite an advanced civilization. They had put in place loyal regional governors in all of their territories to keep the peace. In England, for example (please forgive my history being awfully rusty

) the Romans often went on rampages, terrorizing the local people, raping the women, etc. There was no need for them to do so but they had power and it went to their minds. The Queen of England led a small-scale revolt against the Romans and they were, for a small period, almost beaten out of England...I read this in my history books but excuse me for not having the exact dates and names of the leaders, but I'm sure I could find them.

Anyway.

The point of my rant is that the city thresholds should be a lot higher than they are. I mean, 10 cities for a tyranny?! Only 35 for a communist dictatorship?!

Or perhaps if the AI was a little stronger everyone might stop being less militaristic.

Steve5304 · February 1, 2001, 20:33

give your 3 biggest citys to the AI :E

AuraSeer · February 8, 2001, 16:00

For every settler you build in a city, the population there goes down by 1. So when I want to abandon a city, I just have it build Settlers until its population goes below 5, then Disband the city.

Alpha Wolf · February 9, 2001, 00:30

Remember what a city represents in the game. These arent your run of the mill villages but MAJOR cities whether by population or finance or location or some other reason. Being an American, I'll use the US civ as an example. How many of those at the end of the list are truly key world cities? I used to have a list of the worlds largest cities and if memory serves, the US only has 25 metropolitan areas of over 1 million. The game was designed to be spread out so if you play by building cities every couple of tiles you are going to totally unbalance the game and it wont be much fun, which seems to be exactly what you are finding out. Even if you negate the too many city limits, you still have to content with the too many army limits. Half the fun of a civ game is the balancing of empire size within specific limitations. I speak from experience because in CtP1 I drastically increased the # of cities and the game was never alot of fun because I could easily outproduce all the civs combined. In CtP2, by playing within the framework of the game and spacing the my cities as designed its become ALOT more fun (OK, i also had to increase the AI intelligence but thats a different thread) as I try to balance all the game aspects. But if you only want to play a military game you wasted your money because the game wasnt designed to much competition to a militaty juggernaut.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

Knecht · February 15, 2001, 01:02

Mr. Wolf: I take your point as far as it goes. I’m an old Civ II fan and have always found my pleasure, rather as a gardener must, in watching my little patch grow into a dense and thriving plantation (as it were). I have typically pursued a peaceful and sedate course, turning to violence only in the latter stages of the game and then only because all other goals had been reached and because one needs to keep occupied. It was my intention to continue this practice in CTP2 while enjoying a better interface and improved graphics. There was, however, something about the game that brought out the hawk in me. Perhaps it was the addition of cohesive armies or of battle views (which do tend to draw one into the experience) but I think that, more than anything, it was how easily a defensive posture metamorphosed into a walkover. Which, of course, brings us back to everyone’s favorite gripe. In any case, I seem to have worked through this pugnacious phase and am back to my old more conciliatory ways. But that’s just me. Your contention that this or that makes the game “fun” seems a rather narrow view of things. A man’s enjoyment is always a subjective matter and the beauty of a game is that it allows some latitude in the pursuit of one’s pleasure. If one wishes to pantomime military imperialism in a virtual setting, to deny him or her this harmless amusement seems to me to miss the point of the exercise. Moreover, I would still contend that conquest (i.e., liquidating all other civilizations) is one of several alternative STATED GOALS of the game and should therefore be achievable. If it is not, as you maintain (and you may be right), then it is a flaw in the game, not in the player.

Alpha Wolf · February 15, 2001, 04:04

Military conquest IS a viable option no matter how unrealistic it is. You just have to build all the entertainment buildings and employ alot of entertainers. All i was trying to was remind everyone that ultimately Civ games are about balance.

But alas, I'm done with this game, it just has too many major flaws on its abilities and doesnt adjust to the available geography or actions of the other players.

Have fun everyone and remember its only a game

------------------
History is written by the victor.

Darkknight · February 15, 2001, 22:10

The city limit is killing me too I'm at 64 cities in Ecotopia. I had to just concentrate on getting the next gov. with the highest city limit. The sheet says ecotopia has a 65 city limit grrr i was looking forward to conquering the last 3 remaining english cities. Now i'm just trying to Nano-infect them harhar.
I miss it where in civ2 you could conquer the entire world. oh nostalgia.

This game is getting a wee bit boring.Mainly because i just got Ceasar3 for £10

GET IT!
hmmm nufin more I suppose

------------------
" mind over body "

Dale · February 15, 2001, 22:49

Darkknight:
Agreed. CTP2 is getting boring. I can't even get myself into modding it anymore. It's been almost a month since I played a game right through. *sigh* Oh well, looks like I'll actually have to spend time with me girlfriend instead. Oh the HORROR!!!!

Well, until Civ3 comes out anyways.

------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

Alpha Wolf · February 16, 2001, 02:14

I used to play caesar but skipped caesar2. How is the combat? I'd loved to have seen a combat setup like caesar's incorporated into a civ game. IMO, the perfect game would be the AI from civ2, the combat from caesar, and the stacking/pw/graphics/customization from ctp2. CTP2 had alot going for it except for the all important PLAYABILITY. Or maybe 30 years of game playing has just made them all too easy.

------------------
History is written by the victor.