Building cities to soon/fast in early game

Monsterzuma

the sly one
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,984
I've noticed that, when I rush out settlers (i.e. by taking the Religious Settlements pantheon) at the expense of warriors in the early game, the chance of AI DOWing on my massively increases.

It seems to me that the AI makes a certain cost-benefit analysis, which greatly tilts out of your favor when you focus on early settlers. The AI thinks, "3 cities by killing 3 warriors?? DEAL."

Anyone else notice this, or am I taking crazy pills?
 
I do not think AI actively takes # of cities into consideration, only their disposition towards you, your military strength and the distance to you. Likely your military strength was low because you were building settlers over warriors.

If I am wrong in relation to the algorhythm someone please correct me, I do seem to remember that this is how it was for Civ 5 and Civ 6.
 
Let me start by sai
I've noticed that, when I rush out settlers (i.e. by taking the Religious Settlements pantheon) at the expense of warriors in the early game, the chance of AI DOWing on my massively increases.

It seems to me that the AI makes a certain cost-benefit analysis, which greatly tilts out of your favor when you focus on early settlers. The AI thinks, "3 cities by killing 3 warriors?? DEAL."

Anyone else notice this, or am I taking crazy pills?
I haven't played nearly enough C6 to know if you're right or wrong. I'm a C6 newbie, so what follows is just pretty much just WAGS, except for the comments about my own playstyle. That said, and for my game, it's not a question of "if" I'm going to war with the AI, it's just when and how. I also suspect you're playing at a much higher level than I currently am, which leads me to wonder if it's more a matter of the AI knowing that its military is larger than yours, since you said that you rush settlers "at the expense of warriors."
 
I've noticed that, when I rush out settlers (i.e. by taking the Religious Settlements pantheon) at the expense of warriors in the early game, the chance of AI DOWing on my massively increases.

It seems to me that the AI makes a certain cost-benefit analysis, which greatly tilts out of your favor when you focus on early settlers. The AI thinks, "3 cities by killing 3 warriors?? DEAL."

Anyone else notice this, or am I taking crazy pills?

yes. Your army better be at least 2x number of cities to make sure
 
Yes, I agree, 3 cities early in higher difficulties without a decent military is a suicide, AI or barbs will DOW you. That’s why this idea of PP in turn 50, 10 cities by turn 100 seems utopic for me in random maps.
 
Yes, I agree, 3 cities early in higher difficulties without a decent military is a suicide, AI or barbs will DOW you. That’s why this idea of PP in turn 50, 10 cities by turn 100 seems utopic for me in random maps.

Idk man, I get 3 cities early genuinely every game (if by early you mean T20-T30) and often have between 15-20 cities on T100 (15 on standard, 20 on large maps. But I have gotten 20 on standard). It's not impossible to do this with regularity as long as you are comfortable with the AI and you know them in-and-out. I often manage to secure friendships in the first 20 turns. If not, two warriors and two scouts have pretty much always been enough to deter any Deity AI from declaring on me early.

If you have a map where you feel like this is impossible, please go ahead and post it. I have found no such map yet.
 
PP in turn 50, 10 cities by turn 100
It has never been said they have to be your cities and PP by 50 is a target... I got PP by T32 on deity yesterday through pure luck and specific map/civ. but PP nearer 60 is still OK, just saying the sooner, the better.

as a general comment on this thread, I personally go for 1 to 2 extra cities if I can and get them churning out 50% discount army while my cap does other key stuff but the slightest hint of attack changes my way... it is called intelligence and why I get a scout first. If I want to be violent from the outset then sure, AH/slinger may be an option but when you find yourself 15 tiles from the enemy they have xbows by the time you get there. It is just easier to consolidate first.

as a more specific comment.... distance to their cap, size of your army and as a key one, if you are in the space they want to expand to... are all important. I have been looking at the threat/trust statistics of AI’s a bit over the last few days. And while I can build up one or the other of these values they seem to make no difference, or little... they seem more around doing deals.

and as a little extra. Trust is increased by 2 points per deal regardless and does alter things like open borders. Therefore giving them a gift of 1 gold for a turn or 2 can make a noticeable difference.
 
and as a little extra. Trust is increased by 2 points per deal regardless and does alter things like open borders. Therefore giving them a gift of 1 gold for a turn or 2 can make a noticeable difference.

These are the things newer players miss that I always do. Build a scout first. Gain as much intelligence as possible. Decide in advance who you want to befriend and who you want to conquer. Send the future friend a small gift every single turn for modifiers. Rush Early Empire to establish open borders. Boom. Almost guaranteed friendship, which means they cannot attack you for the rest of the entire game if you wish so.
 
I do not think AI actively takes # of cities into consideration, only their disposition towards you, your military strength and the distance to you. Likely your military strength was low because you were building settlers over warriors.

If I am wrong in relation to the algorhythm someone please correct me, I do seem to remember that this is how it was for Civ 5 and Civ 6.

In Civ 5, there was the negative diplo modifier "They think you are settling cities too aggressively" when your number of cities was too far above the average number of cities per civilization.
 
In Civ 5, there was the negative diplo modifier "They think you are settling cities too aggressively" when your number of cities was too far above the average number of cities per civilization.

Yes, I remember that. I do not think it exists in Civ 6, but it was a complete deal-breaker in Civ 5. Pretty much guaranteed an early war, which pretty much guaranteed you were not doing well until you got rid of that AI. One of many reasons why expansion is stronger in 6 than in 5 :)
 
Top Bottom