Disbanding cities on Chieftain

[SZS]

Well, a couple of possible things leading to you wanting to do this is either you got a city from a goodie hut or you accidentally took over an enemy city in a bad spot.
Usually I do this by making the city a Size 1 and then making a Settler/Engineer to disband it, but on Chieftain that doesn't seem to want to work, and I can understand why...

One way of doing it is empty the city of units and let your enemy take over the city, then poison its water supply down to size 1; you know the drill...
This is a way that you cannot control very well though. When I tried, the pathetic Chinese seemed frightened of me and decided just to fortify a Musketeer three squares from my city. =P

So, is there another, easier way of doing this?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

You cannot disband cities on the Chieftain level. It's a built in safety mechanism designed to help people not kill off their cities accidentally.

I'd say either keep the city and use it as a filler city, or if you really want to lose it, try attacking his unit and see if that sparks him to life.

 

[SZS]

Considering he had one city left and I was just idling to get my score up...

But thanks for the answer.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Then why are you playing on Chieftain?

 

[SZS]

I was playing with 7 Civs, thought I'd start at Chieftain. Until now I've mostly played with 3 or 4.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

My feeling is; Chieftain should be used just to get you familiar with how the game works, once you have that down, go to Prince. Every two or three wins at a level, jump up to the next.

There's plenty of information/people who can help you get past any level.

 

[SZS]

Well I just recently started looking online for tips for Civ2. I've been stuck on Warlord and Prince for a while. But I'll take the next step now. =p I will make sure to post if I get stuck though. What number of Civs do you suggest playing with once you step one level up?

 

[Old n Slow]

I’d go ahead with 7. The first time I stepped up from Prince to King, I tried the minimum -- three. As I recall, I had about five cities & no road network when the Greeks came to visit -- they had knights & I didn’t. Oops. They were nasty. We battled back & forth -- finally I had knights as well & the war wasn’t going anywhere until the Romans came ashore with Dragoons! I stayed at prince for the next two years, cultivating bad habits.

The advantage of seven civs vs. three is earlier contact (a chance to trade techs) and with the earlier contact, a better chance to have a higher tech to production situation, which should favor the player in my opinion.

I still bounce back & forth among the levels (sometimes at Warlord, often Prince, but I'm ususally playing at higher levels now) and try to give myself different challenges -- like building all the Wonders, never building boats, other strange ideas...

 

[Ace]

Additional advantages to using all 7 civs are: 1) they often war among themselves and will ally with you for coins. 2) more civs means a better chance of finding trading partners early. (Both for techs and caravans)

 

[ElephantU]

More civs =
more destinations for trading
better map-trading (more of map covered)
more tangential techs researched
more bribing opportunities
filled-out KeyCiv list
longer games

 

[Titi]

Originally posted by ElephantU
More civs =
more tangential techs researched
more bribing opportunities

Which also means that if someone does not want to trade a tech with you (usually when there's a wonder with it), you have more places to steal it.

 

[Titi]

Originally posted by Ace
1) they often war among themselves

And in the meantime they leave you alone !

 

[Marlos]

Intuitively, one would think that fewer civs might be more formidable opponents, but the AI just isn't that smart to take advantage. Generally, they get to a point of expansion and just stop.

Take this example: Large world, 4 civs -- Babylonians, Spanish, Mongols, and which ever one you want to play. I would think that these three would give the biggest problems in terms of expansion and civ development, although I understand that they are pretty much all the same. Put them each on large, separated continents with good resources and let's see what happens.

With 7 civs they do tend to cross-trade techs to compensate for your being ahead, and they do sign 'secret' alliances against you to 'contain your aggressiveness'. But they still can't beat you.

Hmm... I think that I will try this and get back with you on my findings.

Any thoughts?

 

[ElephantU]

Babylonians: perfectionists, decent researchers, not good expansionists.
Spanish: moderate researchers, decent expansionists, tenacious fighters
Mongols: bloodthirsty kamikaze warmongers, totally forget about expansion
You probably wont run into any of them in the BC years (large world, separate continents) unless you build Marco Polo.

Seems similar to the setup of GOTM 25, where we had large Earth world, 3-4 other civs, known map. Distances were tedious until transports (with Magellan) or Engineer gangs building RRs.

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by ElephantU
Seems similar to the setup of GOTM 25, where we had large Earth world, 3-4 other civs, known map. Distances were tedious until transports (with Magellan) or Engineer gangs building RRs.

Good point.

 

[basilfawlty]

I've been palying civ 2 for about three years now and just now got a hold of civ 2 gold, thought it might be fun to play on the net. But so far I've not been able to get the damn thing logged on. follow directions well but it never finds the game. What's up?

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by basilfawlty
I've been palying civ 2 for about three years now and just now got a hold of civ 2 gold, thought it might be fun to play on the net. But so far I've not been able to get the damn thing logged on. follow directions well but it never finds the game. What's up?

Quite an odd thread to post this question in. I think the people in the Civ2-multiplayer forum could help you with this question better. Have a look here.