Expanding With Lots of Land

[curveball617]

I recently started a Large Big and Small game on Noble and found myself in an interesting situation. Rather than being crowded with all the other civs, I had a huge amount of land to my East that seemed to be all mine. What's the best way to approach having lots of land to settle? By 1AD, I was behind all the other AIs (who all had between 7 and 10 cities). Should I have REXed into the land, or is there a better strategy to use?

 

[coanda]

Take the best city sites, and take all the high-commerce city sites. Consider shooting for GLH if you have the chance and there's a lot of coastal city sites. Prioritize Currency; once you get Currency you should fill up all the rest of the land as fast as you can (if you need to, you can always build wealth to keep from going bankrupt). Don't worry about falling behind in tech as long as you've got a nice lead in land.

 

[vicawoo]

REX hard and keep your commerce up to keep up with the maintenance.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Take the best city sites, and take all the high-commerce city sites. Consider shooting for GLH if you have the chance and there's a lot of coastal city sites. Prioritize Currency; once you get Currency you should fill up all the rest of the land as fast as you can (if you need to, you can always build wealth to keep from going bankrupt). Don't worry about falling behind in tech as long as you've got a nice lead in land.

If you aren't worried about being beaten to the land, consider diverting some production for Stonehenge, and/or Great Lighthouse if your territory is coastal rather than land locked.

You don't need either, of course, but they sure can make this problem easier.

 

[vranasm]

on Noble rex hard. No need for wonders (and it's better practice anyway, doesn't learn you bad habits).

If I have free land I would aim for more then 10 cities.

There is good challenge called "rexercise" which is on Monarch, but if you check it you will see that most people expanded to 10-11 cities without going broke.

So rex hard... if you can have 15 cities by 1 AD, do it!

(you should of course tech towards currency and keep in mind improving the land in reasonable way...)

 

[MarigoldRan]

When you're REXing, keep your worker count low. 1-1 is a good ratio, though I oftentimes do less. The reason is because you'll be building settlers, and basic infrastructure like granaries and libraries/monuments, which means no time for workers.

Micro your workers to constantly improve the most important tiles of your new cities.

Keep a spare missionary or two to spread your religion and quickly get the Organized Religion bonus in your new cities.

Keep the # of unworked tiles low with a combination of specialists and whipping.

If you ever play Marathon/Huge consistently, you'll get a lot of practice REXing.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Don't listen to a word Marigoldran says. When you hear mantra of "don't work unimproved tiles", don't do what he does and throttle your own growth by minimising your population. You want to increase the number of improved tiles to be worked by as many citizens as possible. There is no point building libraries in cities that lack cottages because you haven't been building enough workers.

Specialists are insufficient, they eat up food that could be turned into whip fodder and could be working food-neutral cottages. The only use of a missionary is to avoid having to build a monument when you could be building a granary.

 

[Mylene]

There is no reason to skip good wonders and stuff if the land is yours anyway, something i never understood. Why should all cities be busy with building settlers..just play a normal game, the learning factor is very low on these kind of maps if you skip things you should do on high difficulties.

 

[coanda]

The reason to skip wonders and stuff is so you can get all your cities up and running quickly. Then your economy will boom, and you'll vault into first place and be able to coast to victory.

 

[Loz]

I disagree with the people in this thread suggesting that you shouldn't be building wonders because it will either hamper your growth or teach you "bad habits". Wonders are a big part of the game, sure they may slow down the growth of your civilization but they open up strategies of their own. If you enjoy playing with wonders then i say build them.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Don't listen to a word Marigoldran says. When you hear mantra of "don't work unimproved tiles", don't do what he does and throttle your own growth by minimising your population. You want to increase the number of improved tiles to be worked by as many citizens as possible. There is no point building libraries in cities that lack cottages because you haven't been building enough workers.

Specialists are insufficient, they eat up food that could be turned into whip fodder and could be working food-neutral cottages. The only use of a missionary is to avoid having to build a monument when you could be building a granary.

I'm still waiting for your proof. "Specialists are insufficient." Ok. Why don't you go and tell that to all the other rather successful SE users.

Nick Carpathia only plays standard settings and MP and has given no indication of knowing anything beyond that. And even on those settings, he's so arrogant that he can't imagine other effective ways of playing despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

[MarigoldRan]

The reason to skip wonders and stuff is so you can get all your cities up and running quickly. Then your economy will boom, and you'll vault into first place and be able to coast to victory.

Yeah, except that Obsolete and AbsoluteZero generally go for the Pyramids whenever they have stone.

There's a clique of three people: Mylene, Nick, and Coanda who repeats the same mantras over-and-over again, claiming their method is "best" despite evidence that there are other equally effective ways of playing the game. It's like some sort of cult.

 

[coanda]

Yeah, except that Obsolete and AbsoluteZero generally go for the Pyramids whenever they have stone.

I didn't say you should never build wonders. That would be a stupid as saying... you know what, I'll avoid deliberately misinterpreting people to insult them. Let's try to keep this at least vaguely on topic.

Apparently my second comment (you know, the one after the one where I said "consider building GLH") somehow gave the impression that I recommend never, under any circumstances, building wonders. Besides being obviously stupid, that's not what I meant, so let me be more precise. Sometimes it's worth building good wonders. Sometimes, despite a wonder being good, expanding is better. There often can be a reason to not build good wonders.

Let's take an example. For the same cost as GLH, you could get a settler, a worker, a warrior, and an axe (more if you're EXP or IMP; less if you're IND). So if you build GLH, you're basically giving up on one city (probably your third). By the time you get around to settling the third, you would be settling your fourth without GLH. By the time you get around to your fourth, you would probably be settling your sixth without GLH. You need to look at how much commerce you're going to be getting and decide if you also need or want the commerce boost GLH will provide.

If you've got a couple gold and gems resources to work with, odds are GLH isn't as good as simply REXing. If you're not FIN and you have almost no rivers or commerce resources to work with, GLH is the easiest path you've got to paying for your expansion. That doesn't mean that GLH suddenly becomes a "bad" wonder if you have three gems in your capital BFC - I'd be delighted to capture it on a water map either way.

 

[elmurcis]

Hmmm.. If I have coastal game, GLH is something I must have at any cost, cause it is same worth as Currency tech.. If playing tiny islands (huge/marathon, as usual), can expand far and fast, choosing best city place without wondering about tooo bad maintence.. Colosus is 2nd from series "must have" on water maps... For inland games another story - there I really better expand without wonders (except Chicken Itza, I try to get it if possible, specially if have some aggresive civ near to me)

 

[Cusanus]

I don't get why everybody seems to want you to REX.

Usually, you have to do that to claim enough land. But when land is plenty and there's no danger of being beaten to it, I think it's easier to get only like 3-4 cities, tech to at least currency (maybe also calendar, IW, other fun stuff) and *then* settle the rest of your cities.

Maybe not stronger in the strict sense, but easier - there's no danger of you ruining your economy to bad. (Over-rexing is basically the greatest threat to your victory when you have a lot of good land even without REX.)

 

[z0wb13]

I recently started a Large Big and Small game on Noble and found myself in an interesting situation. Rather than being crowded with all the other civs, I had a huge amount of land to my East that seemed to be all mine. What's the best way to approach having lots of land to settle? By 1AD, I was behind all the other AIs (who all had between 7 and 10 cities). Should I have REXed into the land, or is there a better strategy to use?

playing as who? that matters a lot. if you want generalized feedback, dont say who you're playing;p play the landzzz;p

 

[Mylene]

The reason to skip wonders and stuff is so you can get all your cities up and running quickly. Then your economy will boom, and you'll vault into first place and be able to coast to victory.

My economy will boom if i don't settle everything in a hurry and develop my *good* cities as fast as i would on a normal map
Going for certain wonders when it makes sense is a much more important thing to learn, it's misleading to tell noble etc. players to skip them.

 

[Mylene]

There's a clique of three people: Mylene, Nick, and Coanda who repeats the same mantras over-and-over again, claiming their method is "best" despite evidence that there are other equally effective ways of playing the game. It's like some sort of cult.

Says the guy who spills his crap over and over again, while struggling on IMM maps.
You're either a troll or stupid.

 

[Freakz]

WoW forums?

 

[Morningcalm]

What is rex? I have a problem of being addicted to making settlers and expanding too fast, I'm never sure at approximately what turn count I should be making settlers. Does anyone have a guide for this?