July 24, 2002, 09:59
|
#1
|
King
Local Time: 22:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
|
Building early vs rapid expansion
Having a high pop city in the ancient era means good production and gold. But the player also needs to expand fast. What is the best balance between the two?
I played a recent game as the French (Commercial/Industrious). My capital was on decent terrain, adjacent to a river, and with nice special grassland all around. After my capital built its first settler, I decided to grow my capital instead of building more settlers from it. I used my other cities to build settlers and expand. Obviously, my expansion was a bit slower. But, I used my fast workers to improve my capital's city radius, and I let my capital grow. My capital reached size 8 fairly quickly, giving me a good city in the ancient era.
How many use this type of strategy? Or do you stick with the standard "crank out settlers as fast as possible frm every city until there is no room to expand, then develop your cities"?
I found that civ3 seems to greatly favor the player that slows expansion just a bit in order to develop 1 or 2 cities early.
__________________
'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2002, 14:18
|
#2
|
Deity
Local Time: 06:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Republic of Flanders
Posts: 10,747
|
mix it somewhat, but go in favor ( 65%-35%) towards expanding.
__________________
#There’s a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
And it’s all right, baby, it’s all right #
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2002, 15:25
|
#3
|
Warlord
Local Time: 04:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Olympia
Posts: 229
|
A couple of good cities can pay big dividends. What I do is make the second city a settler farm, and often I put it within the capital's radius so it can use the cows or wheat that may be there. Eventually this city will be wiped out and the capital will get its resources back, but in the first hundred moves the settler city will pump out lots of settlers. Meanwhile the capital can grow at a reasonable rate.
This works well in other locations, too. I like to specialize with each city to some extent, so some of them will be building more settlers than anything else, while others are building units. However, I try to have every city produce at least one settler (payback for its existence).
There are times when I concentrate on building just settlers, but usually I don't have to do that.
Most important thing in any game is to get a good starting postition, of course.
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2002, 15:59
|
#4
|
Emperor
Local Time: 21:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
|
My approach is I don't build anything in a city until it has produced two Settlers, with defensive support, and at least one Worker. Two in the very early part of the game. Then I start with building a Temple.
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2002, 16:33
|
#5
|
King
Local Time: 21:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
|
I think the question greatly depends on the difficulty level. On Monarch I have trouble letting a city get beyond 5 or 6 citizens, on Emperor or Diety beyond 4 or 5. With fewer citizens born content on the higher levels, you are forced to: (i) ensure access to several luxuries; (ii) divert a good chunk of your income into luxury spending; or (iii) build workers / settlers to help keep the population down. Option (iii) often seems to me to be the best option.
I would agree, however, that if circumstances allowed, having a large and content city in the ancient age is very valuable - you can build everything fairly quickly (including a granary which helps keep the pop level high while still allowing the occasional pop unit), and you've certainly got a unit and wonder-producing powerhouse. If you can get away with it, I say go for it.
Catt
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 01:21
|
#6
|
Prince
Local Time: 04:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Santa Monica CA USA
Posts: 457
|
Lately I've tried to use my capital as my settler factory, so that it's easier to abandon and relocate elsewhere. But the idea of having one of the early cities grow quickly is interesting, if early wonders are on your agenda. An early large coastal city with Colossus - a modest goal - could not only provide culture, but a hell of a lot of gold and beakers. I usually get caught up pumping out either settlers or units, and then taking the egalitarian temple+library route.
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 02:26
|
#7
|
Warlord
Local Time: 21:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Txurce
Lately I've tried to use my capital as my settler factory, so that it's easier to abandon and relocate elsewhere. But the idea of having one of the early cities grow quickly is interesting, if early wonders are on your agenda. An early large coastal city with Colossus - a modest goal - could not only provide culture, but a hell of a lot of gold and beakers. I usually get caught up pumping out either settlers or units, and then taking the egalitarian temple+library route.
|
How do you disband a city? The game never allows to build a settler if the city is not greater than 2.
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 02:48
|
#8
|
Prince
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Next to your Mama
Posts: 616
|
1.21f allows you to disband it with the right click context menu under "Abandon City"
__________________
Don't drink and drive, smoke and fly.
Anti-bush and anti-Bush.
"Who's your Daddy? You know who your Daddy is, huh?? It's me! Yeah.. I'm your Daddy! Uh-huh! How come I'm your Daddy! 'Coz I did this to your Mama? Yeah, your Mama! Yeah this your Mama! Your Mama! You suck man, but your Mama's sweet! You suck, but your Mama, ohhh... Uh-huh, your Mama! Far out man, you do suck, but not as good as your Mama! So what's it gonna be? Spit or swallow, sissy boy?" - Superfly, joecartoon
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:54.
|
|