How many cities?
- Thread starter flecs
- Start date
Midnite_Rambler
Chieftain
expand until you run out of room.
then conquer
then conquer
Depends on the size of the map and the way you want to win. Even if you're not going for domination, it always helps to have more cities. There is an "optimal city number" for each map size, and once you pass that number you can see an increase in corruption in your cities. But if you're looking to conquer the whole world and don't care about anything else, no amount of cities is too many, as long as you don't bite off more than you can chew. Start building up your military when you're getting cramped by your neighbors and it seems like a good idea to start a war for more land.
Basically, what midnite rambler said is pretty accurate.
Basically, what midnite rambler said is pretty accurate.
Exwing17
Warlord
Rapid Early eXpansion.
Key to winning any game! Spread out hard & fast, and war in the same way!
Key to winning any game! Spread out hard & fast, and war in the same way!
Ringo Kid
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 536
One tactic is to build about four cities, then build barracks in each one using tree chops to rush them- build an army of ten archers - attack! ; and try to wipe out your closest neighbor or neighbors early in the game. The technique is to simply build only archers instead of cities ( use the archers to take the enemy cities) so you effectively build your military strength and the size of your empire at the same time using the same shields .
If you play a civ like the Iroquois with a strong early unit, you can win the game pretty qu ickly, never building anything at all but attackers and barracks. No spears, no libraries , markets or temples, just attackers.
You simply move your stack of ten or so units from town to the next closest town , only stopping to heal or await replacements.
If you play a civ like the Iroquois with a strong early unit, you can win the game pretty qu ickly, never building anything at all but attackers and barracks. No spears, no libraries , markets or temples, just attackers.
You simply move your stack of ten or so units from town to the next closest town , only stopping to heal or await replacements.
capnvonbaron
Democratia gladii
not a bad little plan. Iroquois make a great early conquer civ, same with persia. Immortal rushes are deadly vs. spears and warriors. Depends on whether you get a source of iron or horses tho, usually. Kinda makes for an annoyingly early GA, too.
Fiddlin Nero
Prince
The Optimum City Number, besides effecting corruption and waste, also gets a Civ started down the Global Warming path. I was using forests as a movement barrier to enemy units and because of Global Warming I would inconveniently loose a forest and a city. I've been chasing the elimination of that irritating little sun indicator ever since.
capnvonbaron
Democratia gladii
hrm. Makes sense. I just got done with a game where I had a compact but powerful empire that I don't think hit the OCN. As a reward, I didn't get a single "global warming has turned x into x-1" despite many a' factory and large population, even getting most of the way to a space race victory.
Fiddlin Nero
Prince
My short answer would be OCN. I don't see any reason to go over the OCN when you can maintain border integrity with units and Radar Towers. I'm sure their are some maps that would require more but having played huge maps for some time I have not seen one.
FAQ "What is the "Optimal City Number"? How is it used?"
Tiny: 14
Small: 17
Standard: 20
Large: 28
Huge: 36
