My questions

[Maxor127]

I guess I'll ask my questions about Civ4. What's the best way to conquer your enemies? Should you take over their cities and keep them or raze their cities? I know that having too many cities will suck up all of your money and research, so it seems to me like taking over all of those cities and conquering the world is impossible.

Another question about deserts. Are they completely worthless if they're not next to a river? I thought I could at least build cottages on my Sahara but it didn't work.

I'm also not sure about the usefulness of other terrain improvements. What's the point of a lumbermill and many people said to build watermills along rivers, but why are those so good as opposed to just covering ever inch of your land with cottages? Watermills only seem useful if you build on flatland around a river and want a balanced source of food and production if you have no hills for mines and workshops take up valuable cottage space, in my opinion.

My last question is about great people. At first I thought every town builds a great person and then I realized that all of the towns are linked to the same great person pool. So when you assign scientists and merchants, etc. to cities that need them, you're randomizing the chance of getting a great person you actually want. Are you supposed to ignore what your cities need and use only scientists if you want a great scientist or engineers if you want a great engineer or does everyone pretty much just leave it up to chance? In the beginning it's not that big of a deal since you don't have as many cities and it's easier to manage, but in the middle-end when you have lots of cities, it seems impossible to manage and it sucks when you spend all that time making a great person just to have it turn out being something completely worthless to you at the moment.

 

[Rad Chris]

Theres several types of war imo. If your going for a straight out conquest your going to need the infrastucture to support your growing empire. That means cottages/markets/grocers/banks. Personally I prefer taking a few cities and then pillaging and razing a few more, once an AI is behind you they tend to stay there.

Deserts on Rivers are Flood Plains. 3F/1C and minus a bit of health (-0.5?). If its not a flood plain then its useless.

Watermills are balancing improvements. After they have been upgraded they provide a bit of everything, rather than just commerce for cottages. As usual in Civ, whats best depends on what you need.

Great people are always a bit of a gamble unless your really ontop of your GPPs. Wonders and stuff tend to throw off your chances. Lots of people have problems with Prophets since they are pretty useless later in the game. Just sleep them in a city and use them for Golden Age fodder.

 

[jdotmi]

What's the best way to conquer your enemies? Should you take over their cities and keep them or raze their cities? I know that having too many cities will suck up all of your money and research, so it seems to me like taking over all of those cities and conquering the world is impossible.

It really is a case by case basis. If you can afford the cities, keep them. If they're holy cities, keep them. Depending on the civics you have, buildings you have, and wonders you have, new cities aren't always a drain like they look like they could be.

Another question about deserts. Are they completely worthless if they're not next to a river? I thought I could at least build cottages on my Sahara but it didn't work.

The only thing deserts are good for are the occaisional resource that pops up on them. Oil is a frequent desert dweller.

I'm also not sure about the usefulness of other terrain improvements. What's the point of a lumbermill and many people said to build watermills along rivers, but why are those so good as opposed to just covering ever inch of your land with cottages? Watermills only seem useful if you build on flatland around a river and want a balanced source of food and production if you have no hills for mines and workshops take up valuable cottage space, in my opinion.

There are guides in the Strategy Articles forum discussing the usefulness of all improvements. These alternates exist to make the most out of terrain. Windmills provide food on hills that otherwise would drain your food quickly. Watermills and workshops provide production on otherwise production-free (or nearly so) locations. Lumbermills keep the health benefits of leaving a forest along with the better food of a grassland and even better production than you'll otherwise ever get from the tile. Combined with the right civics, workshops and watermills provide a huge benefit to the output of a city.

 

[LordCopenhagen]

I guess I'll ask my questions about Civ4. What's the best way to conquer your enemies? Should you take over their cities and keep them or raze their cities? I know that having too many cities will suck up all of your money and research, so it seems to me like taking over all of those cities and conquering the world is impossible.

Early game, you might want to raze the un-important cities and keep only the well-developed ones. I say continue this until you get Code of Laws and Currency, which will allow you to build courthouses in newly conquered territory and keep you afloat until they mature (which will make your Civ a powerhouse in research and commerce). Middle to late game also depends on if you're going for conquest or domination victories. If you're close to the land threshhold for the Domination victory (and you don't want it), you might want to just start razing captured cities.

Another question about deserts. Are they completely worthless if they're not next to a river? I thought I could at least build cottages on my Sahara but it didn't work.

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Absolutely, unless it's a flood plains tile or it has a resource such as Incense.

I'm also not sure about the usefulness of other terrain improvements. What's the point of a lumbermill and many people said to build watermills along rivers, but why are those so good as opposed to just covering ever inch of your land with cottages? Watermills only seem useful if you build on flatland around a river and want a balanced source of food and production if you have no hills for mines and workshops take up valuable cottage space, in my opinion.

Lumbermills allow for a balanced commerce/food/production city with the added health bonuses of the forest itself. With railroads, you get an extra hammer, which mean a plains lumbermill tile with a railroad will net you 3 hammers, 1 food, 1 commerce (if next to a river) and gives you .5 health. Watermills are great for tundra/ice tiles that you can't build a cottage on to give a little extra punch in an icy city. Watermills give + 2 hammers with Replaceable Parts, +2 commerce (which is really +3 since it's on a river) with Electricity, and +1 food if you have State Property; making them a great improvement. Cottages only give you the 1-1 or 2-0 food to hammer and whatever commerce you get off it by improving, but does nothing for production. In the late game you will have to switch a city to either procuction or commerce/food; it's very difficult to have both with just cottages and mines.

My last question is about great people. At first I thought every town builds a great person and then I realized that all of the towns are linked to the same great person pool. So when you assign scientists and merchants, etc. to cities that need them, you're randomizing the chance of getting a great person you actually want. Are you supposed to ignore what your cities need and use only scientists if you want a great scientist or engineers if you want a great engineer or does everyone pretty much just leave it up to chance? In the beginning it's not that big of a deal since you don't have as many cities and it's easier to manage, but in the middle-end when you have lots of cities, it seems impossible to manage and it sucks when you spend all that time making a great person just to have it turn out being something completely worthless to you at the moment.

None of the towns are linked at all to a GP pool. If you're getting % chances of, say, and Artist when you want Engineers; the AI governor might have assigned an artist specialist or that Heroic Epic you built is giving you +1 Artist GP points, which gives you a chance to develop one. Make sure the wonders you build in a city are giving you only the GP points you want in that city, otherwise, you will have a chance to develop a "useless" GP.

 

[Artanis]

I guess I'll ask my questions about Civ4. What's the best way to conquer your enemies? Should you take over their cities and keep them or raze their cities? I know that having too many cities will suck up all of your money and research, so it seems to me like taking over all of those cities and conquering the world is impossible.

Another question about deserts. Are they completely worthless if they're not next to a river? I thought I could at least build cottages on my Sahara but it didn't work.

I'm also not sure about the usefulness of other terrain improvements. What's the point of a lumbermill and many people said to build watermills along rivers, but why are those so good as opposed to just covering ever inch of your land with cottages? Watermills only seem useful if you build on flatland around a river and want a balanced source of food and production if you have no hills for mines and workshops take up valuable cottage space, in my opinion.

My last question is about great people. At first I thought every town builds a great person and then I realized that all of the towns are linked to the same great person pool. So when you assign scientists and merchants, etc. to cities that need them, you're randomizing the chance of getting a great person you actually want. Are you supposed to ignore what your cities need and use only scientists if you want a great scientist or engineers if you want a great engineer or does everyone pretty much just leave it up to chance? In the beginning it's not that big of a deal since you don't have as many cities and it's easier to manage, but in the middle-end when you have lots of cities, it seems impossible to manage and it sucks when you spend all that time making a great person just to have it turn out being something completely worthless to you at the moment.

Conquests:
A little of both. You DEFINITELY want to try to keep Holy Cities and cities with Wonders in them if at all possible, and well-developed cities are also useful. However, feel free to raze at will, as it is often the best choice, especially for useless little undeveloped cities or cities that are poorly placed or indefensible.


Deserts:
Deserts sometimes have Oil or Incense in them. Otherwise, yeah, they're pretty much useless.


Lumbermills and Watermills:
Lumbermills are good for increasing production. A Lumbermill (plus the forest underneath it) will give the same Hammer boost as a Mine, which is VERY useful for scratching extra hammers out of flat lands or when cities have no other sources of hammers. Chopping all the forests around a city in favor of cottages is liable to leave that city with too little production to actually take advantage of all the Commerce coming in.

Watermills also add production and a bit of commerce, making them (like Lumbermills) excellent for adding precious hammers to a city with otherwise pathetic production capability. A few Watermills can make the difference between a city having no buildings vs. a city with a Courthouse, Library, University, Market, and Grocer, making the city MUCH more effective at producing Gold and Beakers than the extra Commerce from a couple extra Cottages would allow.

Both are also useful for adding a few extra hammers to a production-specialized city. My big "military factory" city will often have several Lumbermills and a couple Watermills around it.


Great People:
The GPPs produced by a city's specialists and wonders only counts towards that city. So if a city has nothing but Engineers and Engineer-source wonders, then when it produces a Great Person, that GP WILL be an Engineer. If that city is the only city in your empire with Engineers and Engineer-source wonders, then Engineers won't spawn anywhere else. The only thing that's shared GP-wise is how many GPP it takes to spawn a Great Person.

Example:
Say you have two cities designated for producing Great People, Washington and Atlanta. You put 3 Engineers in Washington and 2 Scientists and 2 Artists in Atlanta. Atlanta, producing more GPP per turn than Washington (12 vs. 9), will spawn its GP first, in 9 turns when it hits 100. Because half the GPP sources in Atlanta are Artists, there will be a 50% chance of that GP being an Artist, and because the other half of the GPP in Atlanta come from Scientists, there is a 50% chance of that GP being a Scientist. The number of GPP needed for a Great Person then goes up to 200 everywhere. Washington, however, will keep the 81 GP its Engineers have produced to this point, letting it get to 200 in 14 turns, which is sooner than Atlanta due to Atlanta being reset to 0*. When Washington hits 200, it spawns its Great Person, and since there's nothing but Engineer sources contributing in Washington, that GP is guaranteed to be an Engineer.


Hope this helps



*Note:
9x12 = 108, so Atlanta will hit 100, spawn the GP, reset to 0, then have the extra 8 applied, so it'll actually start at 8 GPP saved up. That still leaves it with only 176 when Washington reaches the threshold 14 turns later though, so Washington still ends up spawning the next GP in this situation.