Divaythsarmour
Adventurer
Suppose that you build up your population by having your workers focus on food. And then you swithc the focus over to production. Is there any risk of the city losing population?
Can cities lose population?
- Thread starter Divaythsarmour
- Start date
bonafide11
Worker
No, your cities won't starve if you don't feed them (unlike other versions of Civ). The only way your cities will decrease in size is if you build a settler.
Actually, It depends. In your case, let's assume that your city has no food. If you switch your production to "hammer" instead of "food", and your city status is "starving" (your city population is eating more than the food your producing), It'll lose a population on the next turn.
On the contrary, If your city got an abundance of food, there is little risk of losing a population (keeping in mind the extraordinary events such as plague (rhye's and fall), vermins, etc. etc).
On the contrary, If your city got an abundance of food, there is little risk of losing a population (keeping in mind the extraordinary events such as plague (rhye's and fall), vermins, etc. etc).
NO you are wrong. This is the forums for Civilization Revolution and there is no "starving" in this game.
Kadazzle
Emperor
That is because this game is full of happy loving bunnies.
This game is streamlined for action and not filled with all the boring little details you get with Civ IV.
That said, I also like the army/fleet/squadron creation feature in CivRev as it pertains to combat and strategy. It really is missing from the main Civ games and that's a sad thing.
The Nuke is also far more realistic in CivRev than it is in CivIV although you can only ever have ONE per game.
That said, I also like the army/fleet/squadron creation feature in CivRev as it pertains to combat and strategy. It really is missing from the main Civ games and that's a sad thing.
The Nuke is also far more realistic in CivRev than it is in CivIV although you can only ever have ONE per game.
Divaythsarmour
Adventurer
In case you don't know it already, pick up a copy of CivIII in the bargain bin. With the expansions, there are chances for "great people" to emerge when elite units win a battle. You can use those great people to either finish a building project (i.e. a world wonder) or you can create an army with them (which would be any 3 units). It's really cool.
Once you get one of those armies, you can start taking enemy cities without taking so many casualties. It gives you tremendous incentive to go to war. Then later when you have 3 or more armies, you can build a military academy (where you can build armies - without having a great leader).Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
Is it more realistic? Or just more powerful? Fact is, most nuclear weapons aren't nearly as powerful as most of the populace thinks they are. It's when thousands of nukes are used when they really become devastating.
I've had and played all versions of Civ from the very first MS-DOS version to Civ IV. I guess you could say that over the years I've played myself out on all the details on Civ and so now I play CivRev because with the time I don't have anymore (family) I can do more with less. Back when I was 19 playing Civ1, I didn't suffer from a lack of time like I do now at 37.
I know these weapons range in power from a few kiloton (strategic) to many megatons (city busting ICBM based MIRV monsters). When I wrote the above, I omitted the simple fact that it matters what exactly you're comparing the nukes in Civ games to. It would indeed take MANY small strategic nukes to destroy a large city and kill most of the population but the damage done by a 20Mt blast is much more effective but perhaps not quite as much as the nuke in CivRev. =) I think the average size of an ICBM warhead is about 1Mt which is pretty powerful and would still kill 20-30% of a city's population once all the damage including fallout is factored in. An ICBM stike on ANY city would render that city useless from a production standpoint for a long time to come.
Meanwhile in Civ IV, they can take nuke strikes and still keep ticking. Realistic? No. But this is a game of course.
In CivRev, it's not realistic to have the city completely destroyed and disappear, but certainly the concept of that city being lost as far as production and units is fairly the point.
Each game's implementation of nukes offers a different outlook on its' strategic use. The fact you have the nuke is a tool you can use in either game.
Meanwhile in Civ IV, they can take nuke strikes and still keep ticking. Realistic? No. But this is a game of course.
In CivRev, it's not realistic to have the city completely destroyed and disappear, but certainly the concept of that city being lost as far as production and units is fairly the point.
Each game's implementation of nukes offers a different outlook on its' strategic use. The fact you have the nuke is a tool you can use in either game.
Divaythsarmour
Adventurer
Amen brother!
My initiation to Civilization was with 3. Prior to that, I had very little interest in PC games. I've spent a lot of time playing Civ 4 BTS, but I still struggle at monarch level of difficulty even on tiny maps. I've "burned out" in frustration.
There's something about the simplicity of Civ Rev that's appealling. It has the basic elements of "civilization" in an elegant package. And at night, after you get the kid into bed and finally get that hour or two before you nod out in exhaustion (I'm 12 years older than you), there's just enough time to get in one good game.
So you can relate to what I'm saying then. =) I have two kids under 9 years of age about to be three. My time is rather limited and the problem with Civ IV is I keeping losing focus of what I'm doing because I stop and start so such and have only a few hours of time a day. (Actually not even that much most days)
CivRev does require strategic planning and thinking but you can get to the goodies a LOT sooner than with the PC games and that makes it ideal for console gamers, parents with little time, and retired Civ players who still want for playing but can't invest the time required for most Civ IV games.
Funny, I fit all three of those! =)
CivRev does require strategic planning and thinking but you can get to the goodies a LOT sooner than with the PC games and that makes it ideal for console gamers, parents with little time, and retired Civ players who still want for playing but can't invest the time required for most Civ IV games.
Funny, I fit all three of those! =)
Amen brother!
My initiation to Civilization was with 3. Prior to that, I had very little interest in PC games. I've spent a lot of time playing Civ 4 BTS, but I still struggle at monarch level of difficulty even on tiny maps. I've "burned out" in frustration.
There's something about the simplicity of Civ Rev that's appealling. It has the basic elements of "civilization" in an elegant package. And at night, after you get the kid into bed and finally get that hour or two before you nod out in exhaustion (I'm 12 years older than you), there's just enough time to get in one good game.
This is one reason why customizing your city tiles is always a good idea. I constantly micromanage my tiles according to what I want to do. It only makes sense to remove workers from food tiles to put them either in the city or on prod/trade tiles to get maximum efficiency for your civ.
Normally I hate micromanagement but CivRev worker tiles offers enough substantial benefit enough to make it worthwhile.
Normally I hate micromanagement but CivRev worker tiles offers enough substantial benefit enough to make it worthwhile.
drakemaster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 10
Similar threads
