A couple of my tips....

[ainwood]

Haven't seen these explicity stated before, but then again, I haven't trawled through all the archives. Comments?

1.) End of turn resource reallocation. If you have a city (mid-size, flexibility about which squares you work) that only needs 12 shields to complete what its building, if its producing more than 12, reallocate to produce more trade / food. Don't waste the surplus shields.

2.) If you have a mega-production city, you can use it to set up trade routes for your smaller counterparts. Build freight, send it to the smaller city (choose "keep moving" when it arrives), and then "home" it to the small city. Helps when you want to keep the smaller city producing improvements / units rather than caravans / freight.

3.) Early in the game, send a lone settler to build a city close to the AI, as far away from your own area as possible, and preferably on a mountain (for defense). Don't use it for anything other than a target for the AI (build a couple of defensive units in it, plus city walls). This will keep the AI busy for a few aeons, and allow you to build up your home continent.


Regards,


Andrew

 

[slothman]

I use the first one all the time. The only problem I have is when the resources exist so that I can either finish the unit/improvement OR get another pop point in 1 turn but not both. Which one do I choose. The second one I don't do because it is a bug and I considur it cheating.

 

[CornMaster]

Your first point good. But too much micromanagement for me.
Your second point is kind of cheating.
And your third point is kind of cheap. Sure it will work...but why make the AI suffer??

I help the AI in some games....so that they aren't so dumb.

 

[starlifter]

#1: I set my cities up generally based on shield multiples, though for smaller cities (size 1,2,3) food management might take precedence.

#2: LOL, there are numerous disadvantages to doing this, but the clincher is that there is no point. Just deliver the cargo directly to the small city, if you want it to have a route. Most people don't give superhighways and and airports to cities as small as size 2 or 3 (I sometimes do), so the freight is a colossal waste in most circumstances, to home it in a small city. You small city won't have an airport, SH, enough trade arrows. And it will destroy one commodity when you make the route anyway, plus you've squandered the big city's valuable commodity in a little city. There are one or two rare circumstances when your #2 can be slightly advantageous, but in general you're only shooting yourself in the foot to do this!

#3: In general, I don't allow the AI to touch my cities. The battles occur away, like on hills and mountains and rivers. I do expand toward the AI, but don't just leave one city to face it. Expand and backfill is my general plan.

 

[ainwood]

Two of you have said that my second idea is cheating, so I guess it mus be accepted by most that it is... but why?

In reallity, it requires the freight to go to TWO cities - extra hassle, yet you only get one trade route / bonus. Its hardly up there with the Airbase one is it?

In the 'real' world, you could consider it that one city made the truck, the other loaded it with goods.

 

[starlifter]

Two of you have said that my second idea is cheating, so I guess it mus be accepted by most that it is... but why?

In actual fact, #2 is not cheating. But if you play in a game where is is agreed not do do it, or any other thing for that matter, then for that context it would be cheating. BTW, the Airbase on a hill Trick is not a cheat, either. However, many games, like OCC, forbid it. That's because normally even irrigation cannot give both mining and extra food on a hill, but airbases can. You just have to know the context of the gme you're playing. Some games consider the use of Dips and Spies to bribe a cheat, BTW....but it does not mean that it is a cheat all the time, LOL. Also, neither of them said #2 was a cheat.... they "consider" it cheating (in their opinion). Personally, i say have at it, for your #2.... the disadvantages almost always outweigh the advantages in #2.

 

[Sodak]

Yes, your #2 is generally considered cheating - a city that did not build a caravan/freight will gain the bonus for it upon delivery. This would not matter if all cities produced the same goods all the time. Alas, that is not the case.

However, in SP, do what you want. You likely play to have fun, not to abide by a general opinion. Besides, the AI will not complain!

Your #3 is not a very good idea, in my opinion. Your city, no matter how well defended, can be bribed. Cheaply, too, if it's on a mountain, as it will grow very slowly. Better to either:
1. build that remote city on a nearby island, to be used as a base for AI harassment, safe haven for ships, etc.
2. build it where you can expand - make a "colony" of several cities that can grow.
3. build a fortress and post two good defenders in it. This has the same effect, but as long as more than one defender is in the fortress, it can't be bribed. Good defenders can be purchased cheaply at your nearest barbarian spawn area - if they are "recruited" nearer an enemy city, they will be unsupported (NON) units.

 

[KingOfSloths]

Originally posted by Sodak

Your #3 is not a very good idea, in my opinion. Your city, no matter how well defended, can be bribed. Cheaply, too, if it's on a mountain, as it will grow very slowly.

Not if it's a Democracy it won't
And being on a mountain won't necessarily stunt its growth, it depends on the no. of grassy-plainsy squares aruond

 

[ferenginar]

It doesn't matter if some consider it to be a cheat, unless you are playing in a specific game that disallows the practice. if you are playing SP for your own pleasure then do what you like. 1 and 2 sound like to much hard work for me.

As for 3, I'm with sodak (3) Build a fortress with 2+ defenders.

ferenginar

 

[HIEROPHANT]

When i build a town on the mountain I set of the anti diplamatic defense system so I can stop all bribery. Building on a mountain is the same as building a forest in civ2 gold version 1 food 2 sheilds except the mountain have the best defense.

 

[greenie]

I have a different idea with the whole #3 idea.

Both ideas have merit, that is either builidng a city or a fortress.

Instead of building on a mountain though, why not take a second settler and start mining a hill sqaure, then build on top of the settler while its still mining. You get 1 food and 3 shields, excellent for a city thats meant to block out AI. Hills provide 100% defense bonus, add city walls and fortify bonuses and starting from Phalanx the AI will be hard pressed to dislodge you.

Also to pick up on the point of preventing bribery, you can be a democracy (an excellent strategy to wage war without having untis leave the city) or just stack it with happy improvements and or units, taking the cost up. Fundamentalist cities also cost a pretty penny to subvert if they are large cities.

Stationing a diplomat/spy in your fortress/city is also good for picking up some cheap units nearby, eg. Cannons, cavalry, etc that are about to go rampant on you

Also having spies around means that you can pick up Barbarian units and move them up to your front line. In the early times, units that defend with 1 on a hill or mountain are extremely hard to dislodge and have a knack for sticking around. Barbar units arent so bad!

 

[adamsj]

Great Ideas there by the Thread starter!