asleepathewheel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2002
- Messages
- 28
What I do is take all but one city on the mainland and extort all island holdings. Then you declare war in one turn or twenty, depending on the rep hit you want to take.
Enemy Capital on single tile island
- Thread starter Bad Brett
- Start date
ManOfMiracles
Hogwarts Class of '86
I agree with several others about starving the captured cities down to pop of 1 in order to keep the wonders/resources. As for the one-tile island, I'd stay at war and send out enough ships to cover every single water tile in that city to keep it useless until I could either get the Vikings to wipe it out or could build marines to do the job.
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
screwtype said:
You waited for Demo to switch out of Despot?!?
Wow, you'll be amazed at the difference an earlier change makes. Generally you want to get out of Despot ASAP. If you're really warmongering, Monarchy is the better choice, but if you'll be warring small amounts, Republic is better for the increased commerce, which as you noted, drives everything else.
The Republic vs Monarchy debate is a classic, but I would say Republic is generally better, due to it's flexibility. Can take a while to get used to the increased support costs though.
I'm playing deity now, striving for sid, some day.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Hmm, I'd consider getting ships to bombard that enemy capital and hopefully destroy some of its culture producing buildings so as to make it less of a cultural threat. Also whipping or turning foreign people in your cities that are flipping to remove the foreigners might be a good idea as would ensuring these towns had temples etc 
Just three little suggestions.
Just three little suggestions.
You're playing on Deity now Sesn? Wow, you must be a glutton for punishment 
Yes, it's becoming obvious to me how useful lots of gold is. I'm still hesitant about whether to switch to rep or mon in my next game, as my idea for winning next time is to wage war early and take over most of one other civ's land, thus theoretically giving me twice as much land as any other civ and hopefully a base from which I can eventually win. I've played too many games where I started out on a lousy patch of dirt, fell behind, and then got beaten up by the other civs.
BTW I also play on the "more aggressive" level, I did try "most aggressive" but I found myself at war with someone ALL the time. Which aggression level do you play?
Yes, it's becoming obvious to me how useful lots of gold is. I'm still hesitant about whether to switch to rep or mon in my next game, as my idea for winning next time is to wage war early and take over most of one other civ's land, thus theoretically giving me twice as much land as any other civ and hopefully a base from which I can eventually win. I've played too many games where I started out on a lousy patch of dirt, fell behind, and then got beaten up by the other civs.
BTW I also play on the "more aggressive" level, I did try "most aggressive" but I found myself at war with someone ALL the time. Which aggression level do you play?
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
While I am a glutton for punishment, I'm also anal about being able to beat every game I buy. One of the many reasons I'm still playing civ many months later. These forums being another.
As I mentioned before, if you plan on having a lot of wars, Monarchy is the way to go. If you plan on having a bunch of smaller wars, Republic will be better. In the end, you'll just have to experiment to see what suits your style.
As for the aggressiveness, I rarely play around with those. If I want an early dom win, then I might turn it up for an emperor game or something, but I usually just play as is.
As I mentioned before, if you plan on having a lot of wars, Monarchy is the way to go. If you plan on having a bunch of smaller wars, Republic will be better. In the end, you'll just have to experiment to see what suits your style.
As for the aggressiveness, I rarely play around with those. If I want an early dom win, then I might turn it up for an emperor game or something, but I usually just play as is.
If you really like a challenge, turn up the aggression level to "most aggressive". Believe me, it will keep you plenty busy!
I find the normal aggression level too easy. Nobody ever challenges you and you can just go on building up your civ until YOU are ready to make war. The "more aggressive" level gives me a better challenge, "most aggressive" is a bit too tough for me at this stage.
I find the normal aggression level too easy. Nobody ever challenges you and you can just go on building up your civ until YOU are ready to make war. The "more aggressive" level gives me a better challenge, "most aggressive" is a bit too tough for me at this stage.
socralynnek
Civ & Hattrick addict
To clear up something:
There are 2 types of culture flips:
one is by pure culture (can be computed with flipcalc)
and the other one is following:
captured cities can flip back to their former owner in wartime
The chances depend also on culture and foreign citizens and they can also flip even if all tiles in the city radius belong to you.
So, if you sign peace with the civ that only has this island left, you shouldn't have any more culture flips to them.
I hope, I got the facts correctly.
There are 2 types of culture flips:
one is by pure culture (can be computed with flipcalc)
and the other one is following:
captured cities can flip back to their former owner in wartime
The chances depend also on culture and foreign citizens and they can also flip even if all tiles in the city radius belong to you.
So, if you sign peace with the civ that only has this island left, you shouldn't have any more culture flips to them.
I hope, I got the facts correctly.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
socralynnek said:
I am affraid you did not
.There is only one type of culture flip. It always works the same.
As long as a city of yours has at least one civilian or tile of 'the enemy' there is aways a flip chance (if not garrisoned strong enough).
Personally, I rather move up a difficulty level than using raging barbarians and aggressive opponents. I love to trade resources and techs with my "allies". Forcing me to build 10 defenders in every in case someone approaches me isn't fun. Also, it seems as many of the Sid players only play against 3 opponents (obviously just to brag about that they are playing on Sid level), then I think it's better to play on deity.
Anyway, to go back to the original subject, like stapel said, there is only one type. But a city can flip without a tile as well. (if the enemy culture is superior, if I remember correctly)
I think socral meant that culture flips is more likely with a good enemy culture and/or foreigners and shared city radius as well as defenders.
Anyway, to go back to the original subject, like stapel said, there is only one type. But a city can flip without a tile as well. (if the enemy culture is superior, if I remember correctly)
I think socral meant that culture flips is more likely with a good enemy culture and/or foreigners and shared city radius as well as defenders.
socralynnek
Civ & Hattrick addict
Stapel said:I am affraid you did not
There is only one type of culture flip. It always works the same.
As long as a city of yours has at least one civilian or tile of 'the enemy' there is aways a flip chance (if not garrisoned strong enough).
That's definitely not the case. In peacetime, there is no chance that a city where no tile in the city radius is owned by an enemy civ flips, no matter how many foreign citizens are there.
(No, I shouldn't say definitely as I haven't programmed the game...if you're right maybe someone has a save where a city w/o enemy tiles flip in peacetime?!?!?)
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Exactly that has happened plenty of times to me.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Dell19 said:
It appears to be far less on an issue in conquests than in the original CivIII where I can remember having numerous flips during a relatively short war against the French whilst I was Egypt of all people.
Dell19 is 100% correct that cities are not safe till the Civ is wiped out, or at least that has been my experience too.
I was at peace with the French, only two small cities far away existed, but still cities flipped back to them!
The only solution is to put in some garrison units, to switch off culture flips before starting the game or to destroy the civ in question so that the cities cannot flip back.
The only solution is to put in some garrison units, to switch off culture flips before starting the game or to destroy the civ in question so that the cities cannot flip back.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
In fact, you can still get a flip to a civ that doesn't even have any cities left (a settler in a boat). Reason for this is the the distance to capital ratio in the flipcalc has a maximum limit - if they don't have a capital, then this maximum value is used instead.
IIRC this happened 3 times to our team in a succession game.
IIRC this happened 3 times to our team in a succession game.
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
Ouch. I would have burned the city after the first time out of spite.
Still say that starvation and leaving your units right next to the city are the best way to deal with flips.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Well, we didn't lose many units to the flips, and were producing workers to speed the 'starvation'.SesnOfWthr said:Ouch. I would have burned the city after the first time out of spite.
Still say that starvation and leaving your units right next to the city are the best way to deal with flips.
The flipping of cities also has some interesting aspects of strategy:
Do you place a lot of troops in such cities to prevent flips? They are lost in the process if it happens nevertheless.
So place them outside, ready to intervene if any city flips?
This causes culture-producing buildings and more to be destroyed upon re-conquest.
Sometimes I wonder if producing a settler in the city and then razing it on spot, or workers that improve the area, waiting for a settler to become produced, later to immediately join the razed and new-founded city, is not a better alternative. You an also correct AI misplacements of 1-2 tiles e.g.
Do you place a lot of troops in such cities to prevent flips? They are lost in the process if it happens nevertheless.
So place them outside, ready to intervene if any city flips?
This causes culture-producing buildings and more to be destroyed upon re-conquest.
Sometimes I wonder if producing a settler in the city and then razing it on spot, or workers that improve the area, waiting for a settler to become produced, later to immediately join the razed and new-founded city, is not a better alternative. You an also correct AI misplacements of 1-2 tiles e.g.
