Better to take or to leave Capitals ?

[Victoria]

I get bored easily, sometimes I take all the cities except capital, sometimes I avoid settling on water, sometimes I play optimally.
Quite often weird ways of playing picks up odd bugs

 

[EgonSpengler]

I would never play the game this way, though. I like to have fun - to play the game in a fun way, not in the most optimal way.
Maybe having 40 cities all in negative happiness numbers (thus with lowered growth and production), all with the specific district required for the chosen victory condition, is the best way how to win quickly.

I guess I wouldn't know. I don't play that way, either.

But that must be annoying to play.

Eh, to each their own. I wouldn't care for it either, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else playing that way.

I like to plan my cities carefully, pick good locations and actually care about the cities.

I do too. One of my pet peeves in the game is when an AI settles just a couple of hexes away from a spot I'd picked for a city. I never burn down cities (that's just a preference, it's not the "optimized" play you're referring to), so if I can't block their Settler I'm just stuck with it.

As far as the city placement and number of cities is concerned, I think I still play this game very similarly to what I've been used to in Civ5 and I still can win. Definitely not optimal, but at least fun.
And unlike what is very common here on the forum - so far I have finished ALL my games, except for one (which kept crashing at a particular turn, no matter what I did and how far before it I reloaded).

I can relate to that "completionist" urge. I don't do that with PC games - when it stops being fun, I just drop it and start again - but I'm like that with other things.

 

[UWHabs]

If you can keep your cities happy, getting +5% or +10% to all yields can be a pretty awesome boost, too.

 

[Victoria]

If you can keep your cities happy, getting +5% or +10% to all yields can be a pretty awesome boost, too.

so mid - late game your cities normally do about 20-30 production.... thats +2-3 production at 10% which is hard to sustain... the science and culture is not a lot by that stage
A high production or high gold city can get good benfit sure... it seems to me you are better off selling off, certainly early before people denounce you. Later I am not sure all the production for ED's are worth the 10%

 

[EgonSpengler]

so mid - late game your cities normally do about 20-30 production.... thats +2-3 production at 10% which is hard to sustain... the science and culture is not a lot by that stage
A high production or high gold city can get good benfit sure... it seems to me you are better off selling off, certainly early before people denounce you. Later I am not sure all the production for ED's are worth the 10%

I'm curious to look more closely at the Happiness-vs-expansion question, but I'm skeptical that not taking a city is often (ever?) the better choice. I suppose there might be a time when adding a very large city that brings with it no amenities or luxuries would depress your overall Happiness, which might call into question my policy of never razing cities. I think a city needs to be pop 5 or 6 before it even needs any amenities, and of course if the city itself brings a luxury with it, then the net Happiness impact would be even greater. That is, a pop 9 city that has a luxury you don't already own takes care of its own Happiness - anything smaller than that and I think you're gaining Happiness. Obviously, a Luxury you already own would have to be traded for one you don't, which may or may not be possible. That's not including Entertainment Districts, although now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know how often I've seen the AI build those. Oh, and don't forget that Zoos extend Happiness to every city in range, with no ceiling, so if a newly-captured city is in range of a Zoo (or it will be, by the time it reaches 5 pop), that's 2 free Amenities.

 

[Victoria]

call into question my policy of never razing cities.

Indeed, late game 13 pop city with pillaged districts and nothing left to chop, ugh
Late game 5 pop city with a holy site and a theatre
Late game any city when you already have enough and it will just make your game longer...

You have those red medals egon, they are telling you to misbehave

I used to say no, this game turned me into a psychopath

 

[Esperr]

I would never play the game this way, though. I like to have fun - to play the game in a fun way, not in the most optimal way.
Maybe having 40 cities all in negative happiness numbers (thus with lowered growth and production), all with the specific district required for the chosen victory condition, is the best way how to win quickly. But that must be annoying to play.
I like to plan my cities carefully, pick good locations and actually care about the cities. As far as the city placement and number of cities is concerned, I think I still play this game very similarly to what I've been used to in Civ5 and I still can win. Definitely not optimal, but at least fun.
And unlike what is very common here on the forum - so far I have finished ALL my games, except for one (which kept crashing at a particular turn, no matter what I did and how far before it I reloaded).

No, your right. None of us are having fun. Were just souless min-maxing robot number crunchers.

 

[The Highwayman]

If I have a chance to take capitals in the early game, regardless of victory choice, it's the right thing to do IMO. More cities, more amenities (possibly), more territory, less competing for land and wonders. This game is about the snowball from a strong start. I try to win as quickly as possible, so the role playing "what would this civ really do" never even gets considered.

 

[gettingfat]

Taking two caps is fine... just be careful with the new patch, assuming you play standard map and have 7 AI civs, taking 3 caps will start that "we are winning, they fear us" diplomacy penalty. If in your game there are more AI civs then I don't see any reason not to take the caps. This is not civ 5 anyway.

 

[earlc]

Yeah, the limitation to building or conquering as much as possible is player preference. I'm definitely within the camp of finding the nuisance of managing a billion cities, or even putting them on the back burner, to be more trouble than it's worth. The game's basically over once you conquer a handful of civs. Capturing capitals only can be more fun, but lot of games I won't conquer any cities at all. A lot of times I'll play a civ/leader how I feel they would operate irl. Maybe that's lame, that's just how I stay interested. That, and speculating about future releases.

That said, I do think the game needs a mechanic that makes growth more volatile, but I hope it's more interesting than what they've done in the past.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yeah, the limitation to building or conquering as much as possible is player preference. I'm definitely within the camp of finding the nuisance of managing a billion cities, or even putting them on the back burner, to be more trouble than it's worth. The game's basically over once you conquer a handful of civs.

Yeah, this is why I rarely finish games. When I lose, it happens fast. If I don't get rolled early, I stomp a few of my neighbors and then, like you say, it's basically over. Continuing is just a chore.

 

[TomKQT]

No, your right. None of us are having fun. Were just souless min-maxing robot number crunchers.

I was expessing purely my opinion, I said that I would never play the game this way, not that I consider this way of playing stupid in general.

 

[Nefelia]

Yeah, this is why I rarely finish games. When I lose, it happens fast. If I don't get rolled early, I stomp a few of my neighbors and then, like you say, it's basically over. Continuing is just a chore.

One of the great things about Civ is there are so many ways to play it.

My play style is probably the solar opposite of yours: my goal is to get as many cities as possible and have the most powerful empire in the game... on a giant earth map.

I once got up to 250 cities in Civ V. Obviously I don't find city management to be a chore.

 

[EgonSpengler]

One of the great things about Civ is there are so many ways to play it.

My play style is probably the solar opposite of yours: my goal is to get as many cities as possible and have the most powerful empire in the game... on a giant earth map.

I once got up to 250 cities in Civ V. Obviously I don't find city management to be a chore.

I really think there's a market for a kind of "Sim-Nation" game. Tropico and Crusader Kings each sort of dipped a toe into that water - and they're both good games - but they each have a narrower scope than Civilization does, and the player doesn't really have any say in the character of her country or people. I'm thinking of a nation-sized version of Cities Skylines, if those lovely women (and they are lovely ) feel like tackling that project. It would be a big project, I'm sure. I've fantasized myself about a Civ mod that would create a fake Wikipedia page for your nation as it grows, documenting major people, events and sites, and providing some demographic information like spoken languages and religions. I don't feel like taking on such a project myself, though, so a fantasy it remains. Still, as I play Civ, I like to think about that stuff. Sometimes I even think about what the cuisine would be like, or what the national holidays would be.

 

[Karpius]

I like to have fun - to play the game in a fun way, not in the most optimal way.

Bravo! I feel quite the same way, which means that many of my early game decisions are based more on what sort of civilization do I want to build and manage, rather than how fast I can achieve one of the game designed Victory Conditions.

 

[agonistes]

TBH, warmonger penalties are a badge worn with pride at the moment, 7 red faces at the top of the screen are like war medals.

tsk tsk... this from the pleasant gal who used to collect alliances.

That last patch was a doozy.

@TomKQT I feel the same, except I haven't finished a game. Not in maybe 10+ years. But that's my goal: to have a game that never ends.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Indeed, late game 13 pop city with pillaged districts and nothing left to chop, ugh
Late game 5 pop city with a holy site and a theatre
Late game any city when you already have enough and it will just make your game longer...

You have those red medals egon, they are telling you to misbehave

I used to say no, this game turned me into a psychopath

Alright, I tried it. Barbarossa settled a city in a spot directly between two locations I'd earmarked for my own settlers (which were both right there - he beat me by about 2 turns). It was only pop 1. The civilians were quickly resettled into my new, nearby cities, which now have biergartens and a burgeoning industrial music scene.

 

[Victoria]

industrial music scene.

niiice, hopefully with some fitting ballads of old.

 

[EgonSpengler]

niiice, hopefully with some fitting ballads of old.

Doth 1985 figure as 'days of legend'?

 

[Frostburn]

The only time I would not consider taking the, both sides is for a cultural
For a science wipe out all but the best science competition.... its ironic but you are better off having a close competition because your eras will race quickly to modern etc to get the great great people

Hey can you explain this a bit more? How does close competition allow you to tech faster?