Only because civ3 cities are packed as tight as a can of sardines. This strategy isn't as valid (thankfully) in Civ4.. .
So you agree with my only point I tried to make on this thread, but except for this?
I remember posting a screenshot and having you come down on my game abilty cuz I forgot to 'sardine' a city instead leaving 4 tiles left open in what I thought was a fully plugged and impressivly large empire of the finest degree.
Here, a nicly packed sardine coming for ya
T.A's unaltered portion of comments to 'CIv4 Review' said:
Sorry Im not a great Civ player I play monarch Civ3 its got less handicaps. I find I use the editer when I can and common sense where it applys.
I posted a picture here once to show my 2D terrain. It had my citys spred out "fatcross" across the land. A guy named Smidlee here on the site said, "my GOD! you never even settled right!" Huh? I look closer and see a few tiles where my T's crossed that could have sqeezed in a mine or two.
This shocked me. Not that I gave up few points, lord forbid!, but would a real City planner make such a statement? I mean unless the settler he wanted to encroach with was building a suburb, I saw no reason to crowd another city in its shadow especially not have to come up with a name for just a measly 2gold and added support savings. But to bother to mention confidenlty I failed to make use of two lousy tiles? I new something was wrong. It wasn't my playing style that was the problem but the stream of complaints from these guys who think we need every point to play right. Is that City spamming? what I keep hearing this need to be anal about? Its no big deal to me a few spaces, Im wondering who helped design the game and if they were right ones to have done it. Countrys have ten citys now. Thats what I mean.
I expand with a iron fist not crowd together like a class photgrapher desperately depriving others of space for the perfect compisition. For a game that is completely anal! but thats how you get the highest points. Its nothing to do with winning the game!. I win you hear me! For me thats what building armys is about (not cheating armys, I cap those kind
) . I get more land with a expansion plan so I give up some parks for the citizens to play in.
As you see your arguement can be dismissed on the basis of freedom of variables in terms of challenges and choices on how you go about your VC.
An example? Play Bigger map combining higher 'Domination' requirments. THeres planty of ways, no mold to follow. The way you learned to play is what made you so against the game in the first place man.
SO recap I don't have to cram If I can to expand (land n economy) and in civ3 thats easier done without hindering perfomance. It used to lead to COR but just as Smidlee says 'the 'AI mod' and 'combat mod' is needed in CIv4, its only fair to assume corruption reducing expansion through simple BIC adjustments changing emphisis on maintence and limited armys/spam/pollution is all part of the CIv3.
Even better, l fine tune adjustment is an option to anyone who can work a SNES 'option menu' can we say Civ4 refines so easily for everyone?
IM sorry but more would be thankful to atleast have an opyion to choose this 'free' gamestyle of mine then have to resort to mini-map gameplan brought on by horrid design done by tryin to hard to please
a few 'highscore' point driven or MP obsessed players, much like yourself
Lets put it away for today. It was a simple point I felt right to respond and now summerize with:
civ4's holds more citys, civ3's still has more citys ..which inevidedly becomes
had more cities. and on we go I image.
Period. All this other stuff you bring up now is just a prefrence thing, it has no bearing. Thats my attidude working fulltime these days (before I was on EI!
paid to play and merit civ3 every day,
), Sadly Now its better to summerize generally like everyone then to argue exhaustivly over 'nothings' to no... end.
Nice talkin with you Mr Smids. Later
I think I have heard that som wher
Denmark=red .. and Heres my Rank 
