podraza
Warlord
Hey gang,
Let me describe my situation. Due to owning a slow computer,I'm used to playing small maps, but recently upgraded and am trying out a standard map. I am playing standard map, continents, Prince, with the Mongolian leader who is creative and aggressive.
My idea was to fight some early wars and destroy other civs while they had 2-3 cities. But that didn't exactly happen and the reason was that I couldn't bring myself to go to war when there was so much perfectly good territory still available to settle. I'm guessing this is a consequence of the larger map, and I'm guessing the larger number of Civs doesn't make up the difference. I've got plenty of room to expand to 6 or 7 quality cities (2-3 resources per) before the AI can get to it.
What's more, the AI is far away from me on the map. So I COULD take an army to him and take his cities, but then they would be so far from my own, I wouldn't be able to consolidate the territory for years and years. And I'm bummed about the situation because I've got an early UU and it seems I won't get a chance to make much use of him.
Now maybe I've just chosen a poor map and game settngs for for my particular Civ. Maybe with the early UUs, you want smaller or more crowded maps, so that earlier war is both necessary and convenient. But as it is, can anybody make any general statements as to whether it is better to capture a city or build your own? If you have quality space available to settle peacefully, isn't that cheaper (and therefore better) than fighting to capture somebody else's?
Let me describe my situation. Due to owning a slow computer,I'm used to playing small maps, but recently upgraded and am trying out a standard map. I am playing standard map, continents, Prince, with the Mongolian leader who is creative and aggressive.
My idea was to fight some early wars and destroy other civs while they had 2-3 cities. But that didn't exactly happen and the reason was that I couldn't bring myself to go to war when there was so much perfectly good territory still available to settle. I'm guessing this is a consequence of the larger map, and I'm guessing the larger number of Civs doesn't make up the difference. I've got plenty of room to expand to 6 or 7 quality cities (2-3 resources per) before the AI can get to it.
What's more, the AI is far away from me on the map. So I COULD take an army to him and take his cities, but then they would be so far from my own, I wouldn't be able to consolidate the territory for years and years. And I'm bummed about the situation because I've got an early UU and it seems I won't get a chance to make much use of him.
Now maybe I've just chosen a poor map and game settngs for for my particular Civ. Maybe with the early UUs, you want smaller or more crowded maps, so that earlier war is both necessary and convenient. But as it is, can anybody make any general statements as to whether it is better to capture a city or build your own? If you have quality space available to settle peacefully, isn't that cheaper (and therefore better) than fighting to capture somebody else's?