expansion strategies

[hannibcannib]

I would like to here different civ expansion strategies.
Mine does not seem to work and i always end up as the smallest civ on the planet even on the cheftain difficulty
lets hear how you guys do it!

[Gutz]

Have you checked out any of Vel's strategy threads? They all have great expansion tips.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

REX- Rapid Early eXpansion: just build settlers and warroiors in all of your cities till you have about 16-20 cities.

[vmxa1]

REX and get one city making units. You need to grap land and show power. Use a 18-19 square outlay to prevent gaps. Trade as much as you can.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
REX- Rapid Early eXpansion: just build settlers and warroiors in all of your cities till you have about 16-20 cities.

LoA: you seem to be the acknowledged master of REX (my impression from Vel's strat threads), but your exposition of the strategy is lost in the mists of time. Is there more to it than just this message and what vmxa1 added? (If you can point me to a thread...?)

I get the basic idea from this and from Vel's threads, but in those, it's assumed you already understand REX. My impression is that it is very, very similar to the initial ICS in Civ2...but vmxa1 is calling for a most un-ICS spacing of cities.

[vmxa1]

The size 18 or 19 refers to the number of usable squares in the city radius. Some one posted a map showing the layout. What it does is to insure that no useless space is bordering the city. This is the area that others can try to fill and you will have to put roads and RR's in even though no one will be working that square. I like 19 as it allows the near full use of the city and at the same time no gaps. Cities can support 20-30 pop with that and you do not need more, do you? The only draw back is it will require more settlers for a given area and take a little longer to cover a big land mass. It means you will be able to defend a bit easier and will have the land developed sooner. So REX it as normal, but the placement of the settlers changes, the old 21 squares is dropped, the dead space is eliminated. I prefer to do Monarch of all the levels (I have done all) and use a warrior/warrior/settler/temple in the capitol and then warrior or spearmen/temple/settler in the next few cities. But the point is you get some warriors out looking and get more cities ASAP. On lower levels you can put the temple off till later, but those unhappy faces come very soon after Regent. It is good to get a coastal city within the third or fourth city, otherwise it will not be possible to get the colosus. I also find if you do not get an early coastal city it is very hard to build naval vessels as the production is too low in later cities unless they are near the FP. As you move up the levls it gets harder and harder to get the early wonders, till you get to the point where only one is a realistic proposal. At the lowest level, you could get them all or miss one, it becomes common to have the AI get theirs on the turn before you at other levels, makes one wonder if it is legit at times.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

LoA: you seem to be the acknowledged master of REX (my impression from Vel's strat threads), but your exposition of the strategy is lost in the mists of time. Is there more to it than just this message and what vmxa1 added? (If you can point me to a thread...?)

I get the basic idea from this and from Vel's threads, but in those, it's assumed you already understand REX. My impression is that it is very, very similar to the initial ICS in Civ2...but vmxa1 is calling for a most un-ICS spacing of cities.

I coined the term and invented the strategy. That is why I know all about it. There is a thread where i wrote about it, but I dont want to go looking for it, so im just gonna write it here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REX stands for Rapid Early eXpansion. In civ3, the AI, espeically at higher levels, will expand very fast until there is very little land left. To help you get a repectable to large share of this land, you will need to REX. What this means is to pump out settlers and units as fast as you can.

Note: I usually play Exp, Ind civs for obvious reasons. Exp means that I get the scout and I get tons of free techs from popped huts. Exp eliminates the threat of barb uprising from popped huts. I also play huge map, with continents which makes this even better, because I can have contact with other civs faster, and thus trade for techs. Ind means that I start with Masonry, something which is as valuable as Alphabet, and thus a very good tech to trade for 2 other ones. Faster workers are a key to get high food growth for your cities

On you first turn what you do is select your worker and send him into another direction. Onto hills or mountains is good because you can see further. If you have a scout, send him in the opposite direction. If you see any good land, then move your settler over there. If you dont, or if its more than 2 spaces away, just found it where you are. Generally, it will be a good spot.

The first thing that your city will do after you found it will be to get a warrior. Even if you can build spearmen, that can wait till later. The reason for this is to get out your settler as quick as possible, you want to spend very little time on units. 2 warriors cost 20 shields and can be in two places at one. 1 spearman costs 20 shields and can only defend. So you queue should look something like this:

Warrior-Settler-Warrior
or
Warrior-Warrior-Settler

The difference is obviously linked to the amount of shields and food you have. If you have more shields, you want to go to the second combination. If you have more food, go for the first.

You worker should be building irrigation if there is a river nearby. You first priority would be to irrigate the square which your city is using at pop 1. If this means making an irrigation chain, then so be it. Industrious workers work 2 times faster then normal ones. This will of course help. During this time, if you have a scout, you should be searching for a location for your next city. It should not be more than 5-6 square away from you capital. The reason for this is because if the gaps are too big, the AI will found cities between your cities, because your culture has not grown yet.

After you build your first settler, then you should switch to spearman if you can. Then go back to settlers. Make sure that you have plenty of warriors and spearmen to protect your cities. DO NOT BUILD ANY IMPROVEMENTS. I will get to that later on.

After founding your second city, your worker should complete a road to that city, and also to any strategic or luxery items. Start looking for a direction for expansion. You should have enough map now to see where the other civs are, providing that you are exploring with warriors and /or scouts. You can found cities in the direction of the nearest civ to deny him land. The only real reason for doing this is to get good real estate or nice strategic or luxery items. You should not expand across a desert just to deny him land. If you are surronded by desert, then your screwed fort he short term. Expand into the desert and try to get to the other side where you can found good cities. The other direction to expand would be in the other direction away from any civs. It all depends on the terrain. If the terrain away from the civs is desert, than dont do it. Common Sense.

The first thing that you should do when you come into contact with other civs is to trade your first two techs awa y for their first two. Usually with Masonry, you can get both of their techs, or one of them and then some gold. Everything helps. This is very important, because that is what the AI will be doing amongts themselves. No one civ can invent everything. Therefore, they trade with each other. If you find yourself falling behind, it is because you arn't trading enough or you are researching 'the wrong' techs.

I like to research directly to The Republic; Less waste and corruption. I usually go Alphabet-Writing-Literature-Code of Laws-Philosophy-The Republic. All of these techs are high value and can fetch you a lot when you trade for military tech. While at some point it may seem to you that you are falling behind, that is not the case. These techs are very expensive, but since you can trade them each for 2 military techs or 1 tech and some gold, they are worth it. Libraries will then increase your science rate, Courthouses eliminate corruption due to distance (or maybe its someting else) and Republic will mean that you will have a more efficient governement/society. The beauty with these techs is that the other civs will almost always reasearch military ones, so you can always trade these away. Good ones to trade these for are Ceremonial Burial, Iron Workinm Currency and Construction.

Each city improvment that you build costs you money. That is why my thesis Culture vs, Science is so correct You can have high culture cities with lots of improvements, but your army and science will suffer due to the lack of funds. Therefore, I only build in my cities Libraries and Courthouses. In one of them, I build Barracks to crank out units, but other wise, I have very low culture at the beginning. Of course, if you expand toward another civ, you might also want to build a Temple in those outlying cities. Without it or luxeries, your cities cant grow past 6 (i think) without going into civil disorder. The REX start works your way here because you will not have very large cities due to the settlers who take more than they give (take 2 pop, give 1 pop city) After you change your goverment into The Republic, you can build lots of city improvments because you have lots of money. I tend to hold off on Graneries because I find them useless. Like they say "a penny here, a penny there..."

The final important aspect of REX-ing is to know when to stop. Its not too hard. On a huge map, you will find yourself hard pressed to get to 16-20 cities. But it is important that you get at least 16. This means that you can build the Forbidden Palace. On smaller maps, the key is to get to at least the Forbidden Palace limit

The After REX can be anything. The end of REX for me usually comes by the time I get to the middle ages. You know have a few choises. You can play a builders strategy and build up your cities. This is what I do. I build up my cities, and then form alliances against the strongest civ closest to me. That civ gets beat, then I form another alliance against the next strongest civ. I then usually end Culturally, Space Ship, or by Dominance. Dominance is easy. Since other civs have overexpanded themselves and cannot build anything in their newly acquired cities, I just take them culturally. Soon I have all of the cities which they captured from war. War createse these cities far from the civs capitol with tons of corruption. The other way to play then would be to conquer the world. You have lots of cities, with good culture. Those two things means more chance of getting the strategic resources you need to wage a war with the newest toys like Knights, Cavalry. Either way, REX has set you up to win

To summerize, here are the keys to REX-ing

(1)Lots of settlers and units
(2) Cities 5-6 sqaures apart
(3)No city improvements until Library or unless you come into contact with other civs
(4) Know when to stop.
(5) Build up your infrastructure

REX-ing is not ICS. In ICS, the cities where designed to stay small. REX is designed to give you huge cities later on. They just stay small at the beginning. Where ICS blankets the map with cities, REX uses a more conventional style.

Well, I hope that this has clarified your question.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Thanks, LoA! Exactly what I was looking for (and I bet a lot of other people too; I keep seeing "what is REX?" messages in miscellaneous threads.

vmxa1: Thanks. I'm playing Monarch, too. Initially, I dropped down from Civ2 Deity to Civ3 Regent, but Monarch seems to be about right to be difficult but still fun. I had thought that REX was more like ICS, with cities as close as two tiles (and ICS Master DaveV still does it that way). If I feel like trying near-mindless conquest (i.e. as few decisions as possible, as in ICS), I'll give that spacing a go here too. I prefer near-optimal spacing, allowing slight overlap. I find it very handy sometimes to choose which city gets to use the high-food tile each turn (or a gold mine, or whatever). More flexibility when micromanaging.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
... near-mindless conquest ...

Er, ah, um, I forgot what I was going to say...

(Wipes drool from chin, wanders off aimlessly)

[Purple]

I try to space new cities 5-6 tiles apart, as prescribed by LoA, but when the terrain is unfavorable for growth, denser packing will be possible without having to "share" tiles between neighbors.

However, close packing works against the goal of blanketing the map in order to keep the AI from doing the same thing.

In most cases a combination is called for.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I try to space new cities 5-6 tiles apart, as prescribed by LoA, but when the terrain is unfavorable for growth, denser packing will be possible without having to "share" tiles between neighbors.

Obviously, your not going to found cities in a mountain range. But putting a city on both sides of it is a good idea. If by unfavorable terrain you mean plaines, jungles, tundra, or desert, you should found a few cities in there. (maybe 2-3) This is because plaines and deserts have aluminum and oil, and while they wont grow very large or have much production until the Indsutrial Age, you might get a few resources later on. Like I said, Use Common Sense. Not all of your cities need to be optimum food, shiled and coin producers.

[Purple]

By growth-unfavorable tiles, I meant primarily mountains and to a lesser extent desert and hill tiles. Even developed optimally, they do not provide enough food to support a large population. Therefore a city built nearby doesn't have enough workers to exploit all 21 squares. So cities can be placed more closely in cases like this to leave as few unworked tiles as possible.

I don't put jungles or plains in this category, since they can be cleared and irrigated or mined appropriately to ensure maximum production and population.

The ability to irrigate hills (and mountains?) in the late game changes this somewhat, but I don't have enough firsthand knowledge of this period, since most of my games end earlier (in a triumphal victory or dismal resignation)

Again, this placement strategy probably should take a backseat to the early land-grab, but can be applied during the infill phase, after you've pushed your boundaries outward as much as you can.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

By growth-unfavorable tiles, I meant primarily mountains and to a lesser extent desert and hill tiles. Even developed optimally, they do not provide enough food to support a large population. Therefore a city built nearby doesn't have enough workers to exploit all 21 squares. So cities can be placed more closely in cases like this to leave as few unworked tiles as possible

'

That is exactly what I do

I don't put jungles or plains in this category, since they can be cleared and irrigated or mined appropriately to ensure maximum production and population.

I would put these in the 'bad lands' definition because at the beginning of the game I am more interested in building up a road network. Therefore, these terrains won't get worked until later on. Since you should have finished expanding by 1000 AD at the very latest, these plaines and jungles will be bad lands until you have the time to terraforme.

[Purple]

Jungles may be bad, at least initially, but not as bad as mountains, which have very limited possibilities throughout the game. With a little work, jungles may become prime territory. and the cities founded in or near them may eventually be quite substantial.

And generalities aside, sometimes your starting position and proximity to rivals may force you to begin clearing jungles earlier than you would in an ideal situation. As you rightly said, you have to use common sense and modify your strategy to fit the specific circumstances.

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by Purple
Jungles may be bad, at least initially, but not as bad as mountains, which have very limited possibilities throughout the game. With a little work, jungles may become prime territory. and the cities founded in or near them may eventually be quite substantial.

And generalities aside, sometimes your starting position and proximity to rivals may force you to begin clearing jungles earlier than you would in an ideal situation. As you rightly said, you have to use common sense and modify your strategy to fit the specific circumstances.

Mountains are not bad, they're just bad if that's all there is. I LOVE hills and mountains, when I have flood plains or grassland nearby. Irrigate the low altitude terrain, and mine the mountains and hills, and you have a powerhouse city. This (combined with river) is IMO the best possible city place (in between grass/floodplain and hills/mountains).

- Windwalker

[Worthingtons]

um... Jungles are OK but I woudnt give them any more than that, yes, In a game I cleared a massive Jungle to give me three very fine cities but it took a whole army of workers to do it.

[Purple]

Originally posted by Windwalker


Mountains are not bad, they're just bad if that's all there is. I LOVE hills and mountains, when I have flood plains or grassland nearby. Irrigate the low altitude terrain, and mine the mountains and hills, and you have a powerhouse city. This (combined with river) is IMO the best possible city place (in between grass/floodplain and hills/mountains).

I agree with all of this. You need mountains for their resources, but you generally can't build one of those powerhouses next to a mountain range--not enough resources to grow. So build cities in such terrain closer than you ordinarily would, each to develop a share of the resources.

Originally posted by Rothy


um... Jungles are OK but I woudnt give them any more than that, yes, In a game I cleared a massive Jungle to give me three very fine cities but it took a whole army of workers to do it.

No question they are a pain to clear, but a builder can't shirk from that task. I usually end up with so many idle workers, waiting for rail, that I welcome a little machete-wielding to keep them out of trouble. It's either poor planning on my part (creating too many workers) or poor game balance.

Before the second patch I would use spare workers to grow the smaller cities, then pop rush improvements near the front, but now have to be more circumspect, since unhappiness is a bigger factor.