Which is a better starting tactic?

I'm torn between rushing the enemy city and creating population pumps to get my mega city going.

What would you suggest? I saved the game before I did anything and explored the area, maping it out on paper.

So I have a local area map and know the position of 3 other civs (French, Russian and Arab).

Well, we've been talking about this in the forum. Take some time to check the rest of the forum first. Regarding you question, all depends, is not like a static strategy, you need to adapt the mega city to the map, opponents, resources available in the map, etc. If you are playing with Romans probably mega city is the answer, but how I told you all depends.
If you find that you opponent has easy access to gold or some precious resources, well maybe is time to prepare an army an go for it.
Just be careful, the French could start flipping your cities if you culture is low. The Arab probably is going to start pumping caravans to get mass of gold or maybe is time to rush the Russian before her defenses receive loyalty upgrade.
There are so many factors to consider in each game that you need to forget about building you mega city starting every game.

In my demo map. I use KAZUY4's strategy, I rush the Aztecs, and when I win, that GIVES ME A FREE CITY, so I can start pumping Settlers to start my Mega City! Then I research the map and build my mega city, but personally, I get further with balanced cities in the demo then I do with a mega city...but in the full game its gonna be two mega cities FTW!

As an amendment to KAZUY4's strategy, the Zulus are EASY to run over in the demo on Chieftain, too. A single warrior unit will capture them, b/c they don't have any units by turn 4 or 5! This provides a can't lose extra settler pump city that helps your mega city develop. Afterwards, build a road and rush the warrior back to Rome and eastward to join your two other warrior units in a siege on Tenochitlan as an army.

A mega city is usually better. Rushing only really work if you can find the enemy quickly, they are close enough for you to get to quickly and they don't have a archer army yet. I wouldn't risk rushing in most cases.

u have got u go with the mega city, first build up your defence by making a mega city. U want to make that one primary city or your capital, then build one or two other cities close by, the take settlers from the two smaller citys and put them in the capital, your city will grow extremly fast, then once u tink u have a big enough city start to bulid units. i my self like japan

What would you suggest? I saved the game before I did anything and explored the area, maping it out on paper.

So I have a local area map and know the position of 3 other civs (French, Russian and Arab).


This kind of rediculous cheating is disgusting. My suggestion is to start a brand new game because you have already completely ruined this one by cheating.

A mega city is usually better. Rushing only really work if you can find the enemy quickly, they are close enough for you to get to quickly and they don't have a archer army yet. I wouldn't risk rushing in most cases.


Well thanks to cos amount of cheating he has done he already knows the location of 3 other Civs. Since he put so much work into cheating he might as well rush the enemies saince he knows where they are at.

Lol. You guys are funny. Let him cheat if that's what he wants to do and don't worry about it. Thing is, he wont be able to do that in MP, so he'll be screwed when he takes it online. Doing this in single player isn't harming anyone, so don't worry about it.

Still its disgusting to hear about

Why wouldn't yall just be talking about MP and not SP. SP is like the tutorial for MP, it's practice pretty much.

Doesn't that totally depend on the individual boss nasti? Some people don't have internet connection and can only play sp. Some people may prefer sp. Just because you prefer mp it doesn't mean that's all everyone can talk about.

multi player is stupid.

Doesn't that totally depend on the individual boss nasti? Some people don't have internet connection and can only play sp. Some people may prefer sp. Just because you prefer mp it doesn't mean that's all everyone can talk about.

Maybe it would be smart then for the mods to make a section dedicated to MP and SP. Instead of individuals like myself who may question whether or not what people are talking about due to unspecific detail from the OP.

multi player is stupid.

Don't clown on the multiplayer cuz ur dooke at the game so all you is play SP.

I clown on multi player because I think for a game like civilization, its the stupidest thing ever. that dont mean alot of people dont still like it- since they do... but really, multi player on a turn based strategy game that if you play on a regular speed can take hours upon hours to complete?

I think thats stupid. If I want a multi-player game, I play something like AoC, not civ.

I clown on multi player because I think for a game like civilization, its the stupidest thing ever. that dont mean alot of people dont still like it- since they do... but really, multi player on a turn based strategy game that if you play on a regular speed can take hours upon hours to complete?

I think thats stupid. If I want a multi-player game, I play something like AoC, not civ.

That's not really an explanation for why you don't like MP. Unless your reason is only about the speed of play which really kinda isn't a reason at all. So are you just pointing your finger at the game without being able to support evidence for your opinion. Honestly I kinda think that they should've made it 3v3 with 6 max players for online. Cuz every other RTS or Strategy game only can play up to 2v2 and it's always the same. But Civ does give me a new feel since this is my first civ game.

Boss, he's saying he doesn't want to play MP game that takes 4 hours to get through, he wants to play MP games that he can play and put down after a little while. I see his point, still MP is awesome.

Nah bra I understand that. But the point i'm saying is that I believe accomplishments made in SP are pointless unless your going for Achievements to get your GS up. But if your talking about actual strats for playing the SP, then I do think that this is sad. I mean why not go play MP and stop wasting your time trying to be the SP King, you kno?

Civ has been and always be first and formost a single player game PERIOD

Civ has been and always be first and formost a single player game PERIOD

Aight bra thanx for your opinion, but I like the MP, the SP is just the tutorial if anything, the warm-up if you will. You can have fun going Pro in the SP, but i'm gud pimp.

What are you talking about Boss Nasti? Bra? I thought women wore them to give a bit of lift to their breasts. Gud? Pimp? You aint a pimp. You can come back and tell me that you are all you like, but no pimp in the world would be seen dead playing this game, they have far too many prostitutes to be looking after.

If you want to post sensibly, making as proper use of the English Language as you can, then you have much more chance of people actually reading your posts and respecting what is said within them.

Aight bra thanx for your opinion, but I like the MP, the SP is just the tutorial if anything, the warm-up if you will. You can have fun going Pro in the SP, but i'm gud pimp.

It's not an opinion. Civilization was designed as a single player game. Multi player didn't come till much later in an expansion to Civ2.

I can't stand multiplayer because I always get morons who have no skill or they drop out before I crush them. (Usually both)

Then you win don't you? If all your enemies quit, all the better, a quick win! Seriously though, this is clearly a case of each to their own. Some people like MP, some people like SP. I personally had a few games on SP to get the hang of it, then took it online. I prefer all games when playing against real opponents as opposed to computer AI, but that's just personal opinion, and as much as I'm entitled to my own opinion, so is everyone else.