Anyone seen a discussion on the effect of distance on maintainence in the early game?

Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
404
I was screwing around in a monarch game and I over expanded. I grabbed land 10 squares to the west and 10 squares to the SE and 10 squares north. Filled in the middled etc. And it was horrible! I had googles of resources but a suck economy.

So then I restarted and thought about something from earlier civs where I thematically did the minimum distance put down. Except for my new rule was
"3 squares from the capital as long as every city has a bonus food source in four directions" I did that in the game was much much much easier.

But that doesnt imply optimum. It just implies walking 3 squares over and planting your butt and repeating in 4 opposing directions is a much easier game than going 10 squares over in the same directions for the same 4 cities.

A discussion of optimum might give me an idea of what kind of constraints seem playable and what kind of land grabbing is just over the top even if you can defend it.

And obviously its a function of what level you play on and map size. This was monarch large map. Smaller maps mean tighter cities and lower skill settings makes it easier to go for the big land grab at the start.

I looked in strategy nothing jumped out.
 
Back
Top Bottom