Niter ...

[varus]

I have 4 cities, 3 of which are capitals. I have 20% of my starting continent, and there are at least 3 more major empires sharing my landmass.

I have no access to Niter.

The nearest one is on the edge of a glacier that would not be at all worth it for me to build a city out there for any other reason. Is the niter alone enough to justify going down there?

I have looked around the tech tree, apparently muskets are the only infantry unit until Infantry. Bombards also require Niter. It seems as if I can't really make war in the entire renaissance and early industrial era without it.

The only decent unit that I can build without it is the Cavalry, and they are still a few techs away.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Browd]

Either go with Cav and Pikes, or hunt harder for Niter. Is the AI advanced enough to have Niter of their own? If so, it can be worth giving up a lot in a trade, in order to unlock your unit upgrades.

Also check with City-States -- even if Suzerain-ship is out of reach, a tidy little war might fix your Niter problems.

 

[Alpedar]

yes, its acceptable
Building settler and builder is not so bad. Don't build that builder in that city. So build that city there. Not first choice, but acceptable. And if it's not totally dead area, you can build some district(s) there.
With trade routes you can develop even bad city so it brings something.

 

[King Jason]

Yea, go for it. Districts and Traders enable you to settle anywhere in the world.

 

[King_Course]

There's also the possibility of becoming suzerain of Hattusa.

 

[Stacked_Deck]

If you don't grow the city to 3 pop it won't require any amenities, you may as well settle it.

Oh, and cav are great. All cav.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Nitre seems to be pretty rare so it seems like it's worth it to plant a mediocre city just to get it. That's what I've been doing but it may not stay viable once I turn the difficulty up.

 

[varus]

I love these forums. I decided to opt for a cav only war, and discovered that my knights don't upgrade to Cavalry (shocked??). Also, my field cannons did suck all damage to the walls.
Therefore, I believe that those of you who suggested planting a city down to harvest it were correct. I started a new game, that one was going rather poorly lol.

Thanks!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's because the three main military types all have 2 "subtypes" that determine their promotions and some special abilities

Light Cav: Horseman Cavalry Gunship
Heavy Cav; Chariot Knight Tanks

"Light Melee"..ie AntiCav: Spear Pike AT Bazooka
"Heavy melee"..ie Melee: Warrior Sword Musket Infantry MechInf

"Light Ranged"...ie Ranged: Slinger Archer Crossbow Field Cannon MachineGun
"Heavy Ranged"..ie Siege: Catapult Bombard Artillery RocketArtillery

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I love these forums. I decided to opt for a cav only war, and discovered that my knights don't upgrade to Cavalry (shocked??). Also, my field cannons did suck all damage to the walls.
Therefore, I believe that those of you who suggested planting a city down to harvest it were correct. I started a new game, that one was going rather poorly lol.

Thanks!

To get rid of walls with a cav army, bring along a battering ram. You only need one. It'll slow your army down a bit, but with it your cav will destroy walls in about 2 hits. Note that the unit sharing the tile with the ram AND adjacent units can both use it. When the walls are down you can surround the city with 5-6 cav and take it out easily.

 

[TheGrumpyBuddha]

If you don't grow the city to 3 pop it won't require any amenities, you may as well settle it.

I think a lot of players, myself included, rebel at the idea of building a city just to grab a resource, thinking there's some penalty waiting somewhere, but there isn't -- I agree, just glacier-settle and grab it and think nothing more of it.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

I think a lot of players, myself included, rebel at the idea of building a city just to grab a resource, thinking there's some penalty waiting somewhere, but there isn't -- I agree, just glacier-settle and grab it and think nothing more of it.

It makes totally sense (from a realism POV) to settle a new city to get a resource. Lots of towns built around raw resources.

 

[Gtdead]

Yea just settle a city. It's that simple.

I've had a hard time realizing this coming from civ 5. There is basically no downside to creating new cities. In my science domination games I settle cities near woods just to put down an airport for transportation.

Eventually I may even build a commerce district. Trade routes are so nice in this game.

 

[Brewster]

While I have not had any problems with nitor, oil has been a massive problem in my games. I have yet to find any source of oil on land (despite owning most of it).

I would not hesitate to settle a city there to get the resource. Since there is very little penalty for the number of cities you have, go for it!

 

[MadDjinn]

welcome to civIII's saltpeter lock new and improved with a new name! (nitre).

anyways, it's no big deal if you can settle a new small city to grab the nitre. if the pop is kept low, it won't even bother your amenities.

 

[DonPato]

It makes totally sense (from a realism POV) to settle a new city to get a resource. Lots of towns built around raw resources.

Exactly this. Think of the colonization of the West in the United States; while there were plenty of reasons that it happened the way that it did, many of those centered around the Federal Government encouraging people to exploit resources that were out there and/or that were thought to be out there. The same can be said for Spain's heavy investment in the Río de la Plata region of South America, as well as countless other examples.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

That's because the three main military types all have 2 "subtypes" that determine their promotions and some special abilities

Light Cav: Horseman Cavalry Gunship
Heavy Cav; Chariot Knight Tanks

"Light Melee"..ie AntiCav: Spear Pike AT Bazooka
"Heavy melee"..ie Melee: Warrior Sword Musket Infantry MechInf

"Light Ranged"...ie Ranged: Slinger Archer Crossbow Field Cannon MachineGun
"Heavy Ranged"..ie Siege: Catapult Bombard Artillery RocketArtillery

Wow... ^^^ THIS!

They really should make this change in the patch. Melee production not affecting spearmen? Catapults not getting the + production % for "ranged"? This solves those problems and simplifies the system! (Anti-cav can remain due to promotions, but you can also mark them "melee" on the backend btw.)

 

[DonPato]

Wow... ^^^ THIS!

They really should make this change in the patch. Melee production not affecting spearmen? Catapults not getting the + production % for "ranged"? This solves those problems and simplifies the system! (Anti-cav can remain due to promotions, but you can also mark them "melee" on the backend btw.)

Totally agreed; that Units who attack other units next to them while sustaining damage are not considered "melee" and that units who attack at range are not considered "ranged" is crazy-talk. If they really want to keep things the way that they are, they should specify the promotion class in the policy slots because right now the wording is too ambiguous.

 

[MadDjinn]

ambiguous, sure, they could call the warrior line 'clubby face' and the siege line 'rock tossers' then you'd know that they mean that spears aren't melee and catapults aren't ranged.

at which point, the spear line first promotion would give a +10 bonus vs 'clubby face'.

use of 'melee' and 'ranged' is pretty consistent in civ titles though (for the warrior line and archer lines respectively), so 'anti-cav' and 'siege' are the other lines.

 

[DonPato]

I don't mind the names that the promotion lines have now (although I am still confused as to how an anti-calvary unit isn't also a melee unit by nature from how it attacks other units, but maybe that's just me being picky with words). What I do have a problem with is the ambiguity of language and the confusion that the wording within the civics policy cards cause. For example "+50% production towards melee units", in my mind, should refer to all units who attack other units by slamming into them because that is what melee combat is. Judging by what I've seen on a lot of streams and from many YouToubers (not to mention the confusion that I myself experienced while playing), I think that this confusion is causing a ton of people to select their policy cards incorrectly, or to produce units such as Spearmen assuming that they'll receive the bonus from that policy. If they were to just change it slightly to read "+50% production towards units in the melee promotion line" it would at least read more like what it actually means and people could make better-informed decisions. Know what I mean?