8 City Empire

[Big Boss Man]

What is the better way to acheive an 8 city empire . Do you build 7 settlers or build two or three cities and and army to capture the rest ?

 

[DaveMcW]

Settlers are usually cheaper, if there is still unclaimed territory.

But if you can capture a city with 6 warriors or 2 axemen, that is cheaper than a settler.

 

[[db]Perseforis]

Settlers are usually cheaper, if there is still unclaimed territory.

But if you can capture a city with 6 warriors or 2 axemen, that is cheaper than a settler.

I would argue there's a lot more to be considered than just the cost. Taking a few cities off an enemy not only strengthens your civilisation, it weakens the enemy, potentially to the point where he is no longer a significant threat.

It could be worth going this road even if the cost is substantially higher in hammers spent. I know it's not a definitive answer, but in most questions Civ, I feel the best answer is "it depends...".

 

[Big Boss Man]

I am still seeking an answer more definitive than previously posted , is it better to build 7 settlers or build up an army ? thanks dave as usual your posts are right on target

 

[JujuLautre]

as always in Civ it depends. Of the land, your leader, your neighbours, where they are...

I will give two extreme examples but the point is here: what is the best of the two if you are isolated? And if you are boxed to two cities with metal by Tokugawa who refuses to open borders?

 

[Elandal]

On what mapsize? Large map and 7 settlers is fine. Small map and you'll run out of land.

 

[Draknith]

It's probably better to build seven settlers and send them out, as the cities will have been in your control the entire time. The only problem though is that you're not going to have the chance to build that many settlers and settle them without severly harming your own empire's growth and production. Not to mention that to build all those cities in the begining would destroy your economy.

I would say if the land is available build settlers and settle them, it's cheaper and it's YOUR city from the ribbon cutting ceremony. Otherwise if the land is not there you'll have to take the other cities by force. Which as stated above will increase your power, and hinder your opponents, but it costs lives!

 

[johncross21]

I will build between three and five cities but after that I begin to wonder whether the remaining land is worthwhile settling (the economy will suffer with marginal cities)

also depends whether construction (and therefore catapaults are within a resaonable time frame). I might settle another city while researching construction

ideally by the time U had eight cities I would want at least one enemy city (and that being the capital if distance permits)

 

[xanadux]

There is no definitive answer.

Even when you have room to expand, don't need war, and it will be cheaper and easier than war, there are times you will want to war anyway because the AI has what you want (great land, key resources).

This isn't always a strategic resource. Suppose you are Industrious and have an AI to the East blocked off from land you are free to settle to your west. AI's nearest 2 cities, one his capital have gold in one and gems in the other, neither of which resource is in any of your potential land. It will probably be worthwhile to take those cities as soon as you are able. Cheap forges plus gold plus gems is an easy 4 happy, and you get more production as a bonus.

Same case geographically, you have nice land for first couple cities, ok land for rest. You have scouted AI and land around him, and not only is capital and second city great land, but there is a vast expanse of excellent land beyond. Better to cripple this AI sooner than later so it doesn't expand to all that nice land and become much harder to deal with later.

In both cases, it may be cheaper and easier to use settlers, and even better for your empire for the short term, but war is the better choice.

 

[Morgrad]

The vast majority of the time I build 2-3 cities and conquer the rest. But, the game I finished last night I built 9 cities and conquered zero.

 

[Big Boss Man]

Thanks guys , I agree with what xanadux has stated . Thanks for the insights posted they are helpful . My last noble level game I was able to take out Monty's capital with horse archers early . We shared a mid sized island . His capital was indeed a great city . My starting spot was o.k. but I was shafted by the map generator . Only maginal tiles close by .

I was pleased to expand in the A.I.'s absence and without any other rivials my job was easy . We had to make tons of fog busters while settlers were escorted to our new homes . So did I make a mistake in my tactics ?

Should I have let the A.I. expand and captured Monty's empire later
Or was it a better choice to wipe him off and build all those settlers .

P.S. I know its hard to comment with out having seen that game .

 

[xanadux]

Not seeing the game, If monty's land was good and yours was bad, the longer you wait, the harder it will be.

 

[Blaarg]

If you can cut yourself some territory so you can settle it later when your economy can sustain the extra cities, that is the best way.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I suppose by 8 cities, you mean 8 cities on a Huge map, just enough for you to build all the wonderful national wonders. Furthermore, I suppose you will run free market rather than state property for such a small empire.

Early war, a lot. Raze cities recklessly, you need to have 7 excellent spots. Don't even try to settle your 2nd city just for the strategic resource. Be extremely choicy: you can raze tons of cities just to find that one excellent spot. Then once you hit those 8 cities, you go full-builder mode. It's a way I've tried, and really fun. You'd be surprised how much you steamroll once all your cottages mature to towns. Expect a space race.

Here's a golden rule that I try to follow when playing a small-empire game:
- must have at least a certain number of hills.
- must have access to a river or a fresh water source
- must be coastal

Pure floodplains makes for an excellent oxford university research powerhouse, but GOOD LUCK trying to build all the necessary buildings!! Similarly, landlocked cities miss out on the powerful harbour.

Sticking to these rules, your empire actually won't be that small. But it will be powerful, and it will be total war in the beginning and totally builderish in the end.

 

[Big Boss Man]

Excellent post sylvanllewelyn in fact thats how my game played out .
Thanks guys , i'm learning fast and my games are getting alot more easy
i just might step up one past noble

 

[xanadux]

I must disagree that cities must be coastal and must have a fresh water source.

Requiring both you will pass by some excellent city locations.

Inland cities are the true powerhouses as the game progresses. It is usually quite a while until you control all 3 seafood resources, so merely keeping 4 forests around is equivalent to a harbor for an inland city. Eventually you will have enough health and they can be chopped. Whether it is for cottage spamming or production, a nice inland spot will typically be outperforming a coastal spot by size 15, and often before that.

Now if you are running a specialist economy, it's not such a big difference as long as the food is there.

I'm not saying coastal is bad. One of the great things about a coastal city (especially if financial), is that with just 1 food resource, the city will quickly support itself and contribute at least a little commerce just by working coast tiles.

 

[MrFrodo]

I like to early rush. The quality of the city you get from the enemy capital and sometimes their first couple of cities, can sometimes be better than the ones you settle yourself. Sometimes you get a religion founding city, a wonder, other buildings, workers, tiles that are already worked for you (sometimes using techs you don't have), and other good things from capruting another civ. Plus it insures you have more space and can sometimes provide more strategic areas to cover than your own settled cities could. In my current game I conquered Rome with Capacs Ubar anti-archer warriors and got Rome, which had two workers, two clams with fishing boats installed (I didn't have fishing yet either), and a rice w/farm. Plus it has 12 forest tiles around it, so I might save it for a National Park/Epic city or chop some stuff if needed.. And to top it off it happens to be at a strategic chokepoint on the continent. I'm really glad I spent some time spamming warriors to get that. On the other hand I got lazy with Settlers, had some barbarian towns show up, and ended up pinned in with 5 cities. Although, they are all awesome cities so we shall see

Alternate theory: I just suck at picking city sites

 

[Morgrad]

Should I have let the A.I. expand and captured Monty's empire later
Or was it a better choice to wipe him off and build all those settlers .

P.S. I know its hard to comment with out having seen that game .

It is never too early to kill Monty.....