Serg
Engineer
The workers don't need food resources (this is seen on screenshots)
but on those screenshots there are the cities with size 1.
It is hardly all those cities are founded by goody huts.
Beginning game strategy
- Thread starter goodyhut
- Start date
The workers don't need food resources (this is seen on screenshots)
but on those screenshots there are the cities with size 1.
It is hardly all those cities are founded by goody huts.
I can see my strategy is going to be completely different. In civII I rapidly expanded, churning out settler after settler. This was because smaller cities expanded more rapidly (less food required) and 2 size 1 cities made use of 4 worked squares while 1 size 2 city only had 3 worked squares.
Madine's observation above is good, but big cities will only grow faster if a free square can be worked for 3 or more food, providing 1 more extra food per turn once worked. Otherwise pop-growth in a city will stay at the same rate. Monarchy will be vital for this.
Also, there will be no advantage in no. of worked squares when 'splitting' a city. You will go from size 3 to 2 times size 1, both working 4 squares. Why waste resources expanding early on (building settlers) if there's no benefit. I can see my worker is going to have teffaformed continents before my settlers move in!
Also - I used my many cities to build caravans as wonder-food (50 resources each) in my capital. That won't be possible either
I'm going to have to think about all of this!
Madine's observation above is good, but big cities will only grow faster if a free square can be worked for 3 or more food, providing 1 more extra food per turn once worked. Otherwise pop-growth in a city will stay at the same rate. Monarchy will be vital for this.
Also, there will be no advantage in no. of worked squares when 'splitting' a city. You will go from size 3 to 2 times size 1, both working 4 squares. Why waste resources expanding early on (building settlers) if there's no benefit. I can see my worker is going to have teffaformed continents before my settlers move in!
Also - I used my many cities to build caravans as wonder-food (50 resources each) in my capital. That won't be possible either
I'm going to have to think about all of this!
Serg
Engineer
1. The cities must be founded close by extra food resource.
2. If Despotism don't gives to take 3 foods from grasslands with irrigation in Civ3 (on the one screenshot gives) that early Monarchy is good.
3. The worker is going before the settlers if they can irrigate terrain to take 3 foods from tile.
4. No more caravans. May be the unit disbandment in city to give a chance to expedite the wonders building?
Yes, maybe dispanding units will be a way of speeding up wonders (except the statement is wonders can only be speeded by great leaders) A loss of 50% of the unit cost as in civII doesn't sound appealing, anyway.
On best expansion rates, once you've got monarchy and irrigated land with 3 food, then, yes, more cities= faster growth overall, but at the start one city up to size 5 or so will be best if the resources are o.k. Then build 2 settlers and send them off to pre-irrigated sites just in time for the monarchy.
One other thing. With growth so slow at the start a goody-box tribe (or nomads, if they become settlers in civIII, not just workers) would be worth something like 1000 gold pieces. Will civIII still have this as a random find?
On best expansion rates, once you've got monarchy and irrigated land with 3 food, then, yes, more cities= faster growth overall, but at the start one city up to size 5 or so will be best if the resources are o.k. Then build 2 settlers and send them off to pre-irrigated sites just in time for the monarchy.
One other thing. With growth so slow at the start a goody-box tribe (or nomads, if they become settlers in civIII, not just workers) would be worth something like 1000 gold pieces. Will civIII still have this as a random find?
goodyhut
Warlord
Good question. I can tell you that they will be worth more in Civ III than in Civ II if they do since settlers now cost 2 population points. This will make an expansionist Civ very powerful if so.
Dan, could you shed some light on this?
redsoxrule85
Lone Red Sox fan in NJ
in regard to the question asked about if we had played civ i/ii and if our strategies were different:
i got civ i in a video card bundle or something when i was 6(it wa about the time when it came out). i didnt even know how to change production for a while, because it didnt come with the manual. after i started playing, i used to only have 1 settler at a time; i never knew the ICS concept. i would make 4 cities, then conquer the world(on cheiftain of course) the first time i won was with the egyptians(ahhhhh the memories)
after playing civ ii a while, i found out about ICS, and i would have 60 cities by the end of the game(on large map) recently, i find it more fun to play a small map of the world, be a european/med sea civ, and have a close-range battle on prince or king(try it if you havent; its better if you pick civs that are close-by with the pick opponents option)
anyways, i will probably play civ iii at cheiftain or warlord, on a world map(either small or 2nd biggest) and decide my civ from there. if small, aztecs. if big, ill pick a good late GA civ with a good mix of either militaristic, industrialistic, or religious. those sound the best to me for longer games.
i got civ i in a video card bundle or something when i was 6(it wa about the time when it came out). i didnt even know how to change production for a while, because it didnt come with the manual. after i started playing, i used to only have 1 settler at a time; i never knew the ICS concept. i would make 4 cities, then conquer the world(on cheiftain of course) the first time i won was with the egyptians(ahhhhh the memories)
after playing civ ii a while, i found out about ICS, and i would have 60 cities by the end of the game(on large map) recently, i find it more fun to play a small map of the world, be a european/med sea civ, and have a close-range battle on prince or king(try it if you havent; its better if you pick civs that are close-by with the pick opponents option)
anyways, i will probably play civ iii at cheiftain or warlord, on a world map(either small or 2nd biggest) and decide my civ from there. if small, aztecs. if big, ill pick a good late GA civ with a good mix of either militaristic, industrialistic, or religious. those sound the best to me for longer games.
To clarify what I said earlier, a city won't continue indefinetly to grow faster as it gets bigger. There will come a time when the cities population will outgrow it's ability to produce food, which will slow growth. However the constant food box size will make the city size that promotes optimal growth much bigger than civ 2.
dreadhead7
Peacemonger
I, too, played civ1 long before I played civ2...
I am a classic empire-builder, as well as a rabid peacemonger. It would suit me just fine to go through the entire game without meeting anyone. Obviously, my strategy will change drastically. I still think that I'll expand rapidly. I mean, when my city gets to size 3 or 4, then I'll build a settler and work on the next city. When it reaches size 3 or 4...and so on, until I get about 5-7 cities. Then, I'll let them grow for a while, while I work on infrastructure and the like, then, I'll start another round of expasion. My culture rating won't be much at first, as I'll only have very tiny cities. It'll be later on when my culture points will go up.
The most radical change in strategy for me will be doing away with my isolationist tendencies. I could get away with that in civI and II because I typically had a far-flung empire, and I could make a hilacious killing even with domestic trade. Now, I'll have to meet with others to trade resouces and the like so that I can survive.
Actually, I think that this is good. It'll be challenging, and it proves that there has to be some kind of interconnectedness between folks. One's very survival, it seems, depends on that.
I am a classic empire-builder, as well as a rabid peacemonger. It would suit me just fine to go through the entire game without meeting anyone. Obviously, my strategy will change drastically. I still think that I'll expand rapidly. I mean, when my city gets to size 3 or 4, then I'll build a settler and work on the next city. When it reaches size 3 or 4...and so on, until I get about 5-7 cities. Then, I'll let them grow for a while, while I work on infrastructure and the like, then, I'll start another round of expasion. My culture rating won't be much at first, as I'll only have very tiny cities. It'll be later on when my culture points will go up.
The most radical change in strategy for me will be doing away with my isolationist tendencies. I could get away with that in civI and II because I typically had a far-flung empire, and I could make a hilacious killing even with domestic trade. Now, I'll have to meet with others to trade resouces and the like so that I can survive.
Actually, I think that this is good. It'll be challenging, and it proves that there has to be some kind of interconnectedness between folks. One's very survival, it seems, depends on that.
beginning game strategy: It looks like it's going to take 40 turns to get city no 1 up to size 3 instead of 25 in civII. The worker is going to have done something like 8 roads and 3 irrigations in that time, inventions set on 60% will presumably be nearing Monarchy anyway (if your city is on/by a river with roads, trade going to science is about 120 in total= quite a few advances right at the start/well by this 1st stage after 40 turns anyway ). On a grassland site growth from then on is going to be fantastic, with extra food at 5 or 6 per turn because of the irrigation. Have a few defensive units for happiness up to size 5 or 6 and build settlers who can move onto road + irrigated land from the hard-working worker and it will have 4, then 5 extra food, getting to size 3 in approx 18 turns, faster than in civII (if you irrigate in civII you're wasting settler time, here the worker's already done it - if you don't, size 3 takes 25 turns as above).
Also, a good grassland city of size 4 or 5 with a granary would be able to grow by 2 in size almost faster than settler production could keep up (assuming 40 resources and only 8 turns or so).
I now imagine that expansion will be so fast after a certain point if you want it to be so, that my strategy of closely-packed city-building will pay off after all. except that cities could almost get too big too quickly. Build temples for happiness up to size 5 to 8 (depending on city troops) and to get culture per city above 10, and city-overlap will quickly cause competition for resources. I'll be building workers and settlers just to keep the population down!!:crazyeyes
My civII beginning strategy is normally also this so that I can have lots of cities producing caravans for quick wonder-building in the capital, although my capital is only producing about 5 extra resources itself. In civIII, with land-forming so fast so soon, I'll be on 12 extra in the capital no problem (no unit upkeep drain + more wood squares worked without food probs), so wonder-building won't be slowed that much by not having caravans in civIII. I'll probably build others in parallel in other cities and still have loads of extra resources from the non-caravan-building cities. Spreading wonders will be better for city culture points anyway!!!
Blimey, sorry everyone, I'm getting carried away. It's a real shame I can't do any testing for the game - cos I'd go through civ for civ and work out the best strategy for all civs on all map sizes on all continent types with different neighbours.
4 weeks to go
Also, a good grassland city of size 4 or 5 with a granary would be able to grow by 2 in size almost faster than settler production could keep up (assuming 40 resources and only 8 turns or so).
I now imagine that expansion will be so fast after a certain point if you want it to be so, that my strategy of closely-packed city-building will pay off after all. except that cities could almost get too big too quickly. Build temples for happiness up to size 5 to 8 (depending on city troops) and to get culture per city above 10, and city-overlap will quickly cause competition for resources. I'll be building workers and settlers just to keep the population down!!:crazyeyes
My civII beginning strategy is normally also this so that I can have lots of cities producing caravans for quick wonder-building in the capital, although my capital is only producing about 5 extra resources itself. In civIII, with land-forming so fast so soon, I'll be on 12 extra in the capital no problem (no unit upkeep drain + more wood squares worked without food probs), so wonder-building won't be slowed that much by not having caravans in civIII. I'll probably build others in parallel in other cities and still have loads of extra resources from the non-caravan-building cities. Spreading wonders will be better for city culture points anyway!!!
Blimey, sorry everyone, I'm getting carried away. It's a real shame I can't do any testing for the game - cos I'd go through civ for civ and work out the best strategy for all civs on all map sizes on all continent types with different neighbours.
4 weeks to go
Sukenis
the J'BOOtian Warlord
There is something that has not been mentioned here that should be, slaves. You can slave other civs workers. I plan on starting as the Aztecs and using the extra movement of the warrior to get goodie huts and meet other civs quickly. Once I meet a civ I will wait until I can grab two or more workers (as slaves) and make a sneak attack. This way the cities can grow with all the roads and irrigation you might need without having give up population points. This way I can make more settlers due to needing less workers. Yes the Aztechs may not have the GREAT movement of the scounts, but they can be warmongers and still get a decent exploration in the beginning.
With the military units I (hope to) get from the goodie huts I will attack to try to get a great leaders. With him I will make an army with Warriors in it to get a golden age. With the early golden age I can pump out units faster (for the war I started) and have a decent trade. Also since the Aztecs are religious the extra production will mean faster temples and thus more/faster culture early on.
Aztecs can be VERY good at early wars since the basic warrior has a ZOC (is that right? units with a move of 2 or more have a ZOC?). This can be a good tool if used right.
And yes, I will be creating a world that is 5 billion years old to allow better movement for the warriors.
The MASSIVE flaw of this is that if I fail to find a civ in the beginning (of ir I find a VERY early spec unit civ like Zulu) then my evil plans fail. Also if I fail to get units from goodie huts (or fail to find many goodie huts) then getting those 1/1/2 warriors to win a fight (and thus start a golden age ) will be much difficult.
I will start on prince also.
With the military units I (hope to) get from the goodie huts I will attack to try to get a great leaders. With him I will make an army with Warriors in it to get a golden age. With the early golden age I can pump out units faster (for the war I started) and have a decent trade. Also since the Aztecs are religious the extra production will mean faster temples and thus more/faster culture early on.
Aztecs can be VERY good at early wars since the basic warrior has a ZOC (is that right? units with a move of 2 or more have a ZOC?). This can be a good tool if used right.
And yes, I will be creating a world that is 5 billion years old to allow better movement for the warriors.
The MASSIVE flaw of this is that if I fail to find a civ in the beginning (of ir I find a VERY early spec unit civ like Zulu) then my evil plans fail. Also if I fail to get units from goodie huts (or fail to find many goodie huts) then getting those 1/1/2 warriors to win a fight (and thus start a golden age ) will be much difficult.
I will start on prince also.
freemen
God of the mechanics
I played civ1 with one of my friend before getting it. Ha de Souvenir . Next i got civ 2. 
My strategy will deffer form the one i used in civ1 and 2. Im an isolationnist, so when i find civ i usualy block the terran way to my kingdom why military unit. But with trade resourse and better border, dont wont get near my cities without retaliation from me
. But i will expand very fast, to fill my land with my superior culture. I will stand with my constance infrastructure building, and my improvement building like always. Since I'm a peace emperor, war will be far in the future. I can build improvement without worrying about that. So after a while, when my country is a bit larger, i begin to seek other civ(If i'm alone in my island) sending ship on the fourth point of the globe. 
And then i will trade. If i'm lucky i will have a fair amount of strategic and natural ressource near my country, so iu will be a major trademan. Then later in the modern era, i will lets my military take the game to kill everybody who defy my superior culture. then when the world have been conquer, i retired in a little island close enough of my capitol and take some sun.
It is the megalomaniac assembly here
??.......no, damn i must revised my plan for the future. Kill everybody who will read this
now i can do my laundry
. Next i got civ 2. My strategy will deffer form the one i used in civ1 and 2. Im an isolationnist, so when i find civ i usualy block the terran way to my kingdom why military unit. But with trade resourse and better border, dont wont get near my cities without retaliation from me . But i will expand very fast, to fill my land with my superior culture. I will stand with my constance infrastructure building, and my improvement building like always. Since I'm a peace emperor, war will be far in the future. I can build improvement without worrying about that. So after a while, when my country is a bit larger, i begin to seek other civ(If i'm alone in my island) sending ship on the fourth point of the globe. And then i will trade. If i'm lucky i will have a fair amount of strategic and natural ressource near my country, so iu will be a major trademan. Then later in the modern era, i will lets my military take the game to kill everybody who defy my superior culture. then when the world have been conquer, i retired in a little island close enough of my capitol and take some sun. It is the megalomaniac assembly here
??.......no, damn i must revised my plan for the future. Kill everybody who will read this now i can do my laundry
Sparrowhawk
The Builder
That's a very clever idea, capturing enemy workers and settlers! At the same time though, it's going to mean defending your own workers and settlers from similar fates.
On a different topic though, I'm a little worried about the food-box to growth-rate relationship. I've heard that 40 food is required to grow a city, regardless of its size. But what about small cities? Doesn't this mean they will grow slower? I'm pretty sure that in Civ 2 a size 1 city could grow after 20 food.... So now we'll have to wait twice as long?? This could really delay worker/settler production!
On a different topic though, I'm a little worried about the food-box to growth-rate relationship. I've heard that 40 food is required to grow a city, regardless of its size. But what about small cities? Doesn't this mean they will grow slower? I'm pretty sure that in Civ 2 a size 1 city could grow after 20 food.... So now we'll have to wait twice as long?? This could really delay worker/settler production!
jc011
Rider of Rohan
i think i will play the romans!, as usual, stick with my current civ2 strategy and just see what happens. I think i should build more defensive units early on.
Yes, I've just mentioned the slow start myself (3 posts up), but because the worker can do so much work (irrigation) at the beginning and growth stays at 40 food, at size 4, cities will be onto size 6 in about the time it takes to build a settler (down to size 4 again) anyway. I now reckon that stopping to build a couple of workers will hardly dent (in fact be necessary for) the rapid growth rate in civIII that will be possible after the admittedly slower start.
(and yes, I'll be protecting my workers when they go off to pre-irrigate new land for new cities). How many units will be for free (no running costs in gold) under a monarchy?
(and yes, I'll be protecting my workers when they go off to pre-irrigate new land for new cities). How many units will be for free (no running costs in gold) under a monarchy?
TownsendVol
Bringer of Justic & Hope
time out so to speak, I will just be trying to learn the rules and survive.
So I would say I will be very defensive and cautious to start out with.
So I would say I will be very defensive and cautious to start out with.
Similar threads
