Purchasing city improvements

Kris Rhodes

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 23, 2001
Messages
15
Is there a way to purchace city improvements in Civ1 as you can in Civ2? As in, rather than waiting for their production, going ahead and buying them for so many gold per shield remaining?

Thanks...

(I don't have a copy of the manual, is the reason I am asking...)

Also, some pointers for the beginning of the game would be good. My strategy right now is to settle immediately, build a settler, and only then begin to build militia or phalanxes. I do this becasue in my experience, if I encounter enemy military during the very beginning stage of the game, I am basically screwed already. Either he will kill me, or I will spend so much time and effort trying to kill him that my developement is hopelessly crippled. Does this seem intelligent to everyone, or am I pursuing a false line of reasoning?

(BTW, Thanks for letting me register, Mr.
Sysop person...)

-Kris
 
Now I'm all confused. I found the manual ehre at this site, and it says to click "the buy" button that is in "the top right corner of the production box" or words to that effect. But I see no such box anywhere on my city status screen.

Do I have some early version of the game or something? (I have civ for windows version 1.2.0) Please help!

-Kris
 
So many question...
Well, first as far as I remember there SHOULD be a buy button somewhere in the city box. Actually I'm playing Civ on Macintosh which has 2 buttons on the production box: change & buy. So I wonder why you don't have it. Or perhaps you should wear glasses
biggrin.gif
Just kidding.

Concerning your strategy, you know, it's exactly like playing chess. If there are thousands of different tactics, I think the opening moves remain always the same.
_ First irrigate your square.
_ Then build your 1st town.
_ Depending on discoveries you have at the beginning (sometimes you've got alphabet, pottery, bronze working or several basic advances as soon as you start so it spares you from having to research them) you build one (and only one) phalanx or militia. Then it depends. If your city has reached 2 you can build a settler. Otherwise, just build a second military unit. That sufficient. Don't waste any more resource for unit. Focus everything on science at the beginning. I usually put science to 100% (since there's no building to upkeep yet so you needn't money)
_ One of the strategy and the one I play is "technologism". Ignore monarchy, go straight to literacy and then republic. Then research democracy and stay in Demo as long as you've not discovered tanks or riflemen... War isn't interesting until you get modern units. Ignore catapults. If you're really paranoiac, just build 1 or 2 chariots on your city to attack barb or enemy nation. But as I said, focus on science.

Hope this getting started tip has been somehow useful to you.

------------------
Genghis K.
 
The reason you can't see the buy button is most likely because you're playing on civ for windows. As far as that is concerned, I really can't help you.

Now, when it comes to the start of the game, I usually build a city ASAP. If, by chance, I start with two settlers I build cities immediately with both. Any new city follows this pattern:

1.Build a milita. The militia is quick to build, and remember that he is not a veteran so don't expect much of him.
2.Start to build a settler.
3.While the settler is building, move the militia out of the city and explore the regions in the immediate vicinity. The idea is to open up any squares around the city that may still be blacked out and you may want to use them for city production.
4. Return the milita to the city and fortify it.
5. The settler you built should go and build another city. A road to the new city may be worthwhile, but irrigation is not at this point because it does not offer much when in Despotism (see the terrain chart http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/terchart.htm ).
6. Next, build a barracks. Veteran units are invaluable.
7. Build 2 phalanxes. After the second one is finished, unfortify the milita and use it to explore.

After a city has done these things, it is really up to your long-term strategy to determine what happens next. If you are playing a production/democratic style strategy, then you will want the city to grow more, get ready to convert to monarchy, perhaps build the Colossus or Pyramids. However, if you are playing militaristic, I would suggest staying in despotism until you conquer the world and also stunting the growth of your cities (rearrange the land use in the city screen so that no extra food is produced, optimize for resources). After all, you don't want to be paying for temples etc, just military units.

Now for tax rates, you absolutely MUST go on 100% science on the first or second turn. this is because if you do not develop The Wheel (chariot) and Bronze Working (phalanx), you will not stand a chance in any early wars. After this, it's up to you. On a militaristic game, I usually stay in 100% science until I have the techs for Legion, Cavalry, Chariot, Phalanx, Trireme, Catapult and Diplomat. When in a production/democratic game I will either choose to get an early head start in tech by staying on 100% science for a while, or I will go to 100% tax for a while so that I can buy a wonder of the world, usually Pramids or Colossus.

It is also important at the beginning of the game to pick your fights well. You cannot avoid mistakes. Take a look at the CIA page ( http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/cia/ ) and take a look at the threat ratings of the civs around you. If they are fairly harmless, then leave them alone, at least until you are comfortable to attack with a moderate sized army. If they are a high threat level (especially the mongols!) then go militaristic and start making plans to wipe them out, as soon as you meet them. Also, be careful when picking up those little huts. If you only have 1 or 2 cities and they are not well defended yet, then I suggest NOT picking it up, at least not yet. Wait until you have more units; it does not help to put yourself in needless danger.

I hope this helps. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/militia.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/phalanx.gif" border=0>
Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center

[This message has been edited by TTG (edited April 24, 2001).]
 
6. Next, build a barracks. Veteran units are invaluable.
Don't agree. Not sure. If you play Civ1 against computer, it's really unnecessary and I even say it wastes your resources. Personally, I've never built even one barracks in my town. Since your phalanx become veteran after 1 or 2 victories... So as I said, you waste 40 shields (something like that) building barracks. At the beginning of the game shields are <FONT COLOR="red">invaluable</FONT c>
But anyway, everybody has his/her own strategy. I don't think you need lessons on playing Civ1
smile.gif


------------------
Genghis K.
 
Thanks for the tips you guys. I finally figured out how to buy the improvements. There is a "city" menu in the main menu bar of the program, but when you have the city display up, the "city" menu and all other menus are grayed out. So it didn't occur to me to check them. (I didn't even know there was a city menu up there at all...)

Finally, I noticed the grayed out city menu, and checked it just for kicks. Sure enough, there was the buy option right there in front of me.

Regarding opening strategy, I will try all the different techniques you guys named and see what works for me! Thanks again!

-Kris
 
The easiest way you can use to buy what you are building is to hit the 'B'-key on your keyboard. But I bet you saw that in the City meny, right?

Best Regards - Cain
 
Cain: unless you have civ for windows as well, it's not much use trying to give advice on interface and controls. It is just as likely to be totally wrong as it is to be correct. Unless you DO have civ for windows... then just ignore that.

GenghisK: Well building the barracks is important, not so much for the sake of the phalanxes as it is towards long-term strategy. There are several ways to increase unit defense (city walls, fotresses, fortifying, terrain), but only one way to increase offensive power beyond the original settings and that is to make the unit a veteran. So if you ever intend to launch an attack against an enemy civ, then the difference that barracks can make in such an invasion can win or lose the war for you. When I mentioned them in my strategy there, it was more of timing thing than anything. I mean, they don't take long to build so why not build them as soon as possible and make your phalanxes veterans for free? Makes sense to me. The militia, of course, are unaffacted by veteran status because it adds 50% and they only have 1/1/1, and there are no fractions here. What I used to do was just go settler-barracks-phalanx-phalanx, but a city with no defense whatsoever is too vulnerable. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent now.
smile.gif


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/militia.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/phalanx.gif" border=0>
Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center
 
As a newbie to this forum, I feel a bit wary of arguing with the administrator, but I have to agree with Genghis on barracks - they are a waste of time IMHO. Certainly at the start, because they get sold as soon as you get Gunpowder, which tends to be quite quickly, the way I play. Maybe I'm just not so aggresive - I tend not to attack my neighbours at the start unless I have to (especially if I start on a small island - I hate having to share!). Since you can get tech much quicker than everyone else (who will always have a higher tax rate than they need) it doesn't take long before you can be building musketeers.

On which point, I also disagree with your aim to build cities over roads with your early settlers. That extra trade can make a heck of a difference when you only need 10 beakers per advance.

But in the end, Kris is right - try everything out and see what works :-)
 
Hey, Supernaut, welcome here. Hope you'll be posting a lot.
Anyway, extra is not so useful at the beginning since basic techs can be learned quite quickly. And something I forgot to tell Kris. I think it's a better idea to enhance each of your town than spreading over the continent with small towns. I mean use your settlers to upgrade/irrigate/build road/mines all around your city before founding another one. One big enhanced city produce more ressource than 10 littles 2-size ones... At least that's my way of playing. I'm a perfectionnist. I always want the best from my cities.

PS: BTW, I see you're in London like me too. Where are you?

------------------
Genghis K.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/girl011.gif" border=0>
 
Please argue with me. I enjoy a good argument. If you are wondering about what works and what does not at the beginning, all you have to do is look at the results. When going for high scores, I am never to eager to get much tech at the beginning. The techs for a good assortment of primitive military units is enough. I never go as far as musketeers unless I have established myself and I feel like "settling down". For one, the musketeers are way too expensive to build. They are twice as much as phalanxes!

But if you concentrate on building your POPULATION early on in the game and you have a large army composed of an assortment of primitive units, the possibilities for conquest are endless. When two civs make contact and one of them has a city that's a 6 with good trade and balances resources and food, and the other civ has 6 cities, all of which are 4 or lower and producing nothing but military units, all of which are veterans, it becomes really irrelevant that the first civ has a better city or more tech. In fact, even if that civ had bombers, battleships, tanks, etc... I would still place my money on the second civ. If you have enough units, no matter how primitive they are, you can capture ANY city, using something I call a seige. You place your units on every square near that city so that it can no longer produce food, resources, or trade. Uh oh, they have two tanks and a bomber... look they destroyed 12 of your units before they died... But oh my!!! You have 80 more (literally). With this kind of a militaristic strategy, and using things like seiges to overcome difficult cities, I have often conquered the world before ANYONE discovered gunpowder. If you have never played this way before, give it a try.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/militia.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/phalanx.gif" border=0>
Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center
 
Right TTG, you've asked for it <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

I've never tried the all out military conquest approach - I suppose I'm just too perfectionist for it. I shall have to give it a go next time I play CIV. At the moment I have to admit I am in a CIV2 phase, having only had it a while.

THe problem I find with the military option is that the combat system is so unpredictable - I suppose that reflects the reality of most of history where battles where usually avoided because they could be cataclysmic, and people resorted to sieges. But I like to be sure I'm going to win, so I wait until I have overwhelming superiority - I'm just a big bully really. I've had too many invading armies of chariots and catapults destroyed by one city's garrison of phalanxes.

That said, I don't think I'm as perfectionist as GhengisK. I like to try to strike a balance between quantity and quality of cities. In the early game, it's important to spread quickly, while there's lots of land to grab. Even better if you can find your neighbourng civ and bottle him up with a few well placed fortified units. By the time he gets round to breaking your peace treaty and then killing your men, you should be ready for him.

I try to strie a balance between having lots of little cities and oen big one - I find it is quite easy to have lots of medium sized cities which gives you an huge advantage. To extend TTG's example, it wouldn't be the case of one civ having one size 6 city vs 6 size 2s - it would be more like 1 size 6 and 3 size 4s, which would
spanking.gif
the other civs backside. Not least because the good road network would allow the advanced civ to bring up reinforcements more quickly. Sieges only work if the besieged can't bring up a field army - just think, all those individual units scatterd around in the plains make very tempting targets to a few chariots, let alone tanks or fighters.

My basic formula is - build city, build militia unit to start exploring, build one or two defenders (depending on stage of game), build settler, settler builds roads and irrigates the obvious squares, build granary and temple, then build another settler and send the first off to build another city. In the meantime, my militia unit should have found a good place to build the city, and picked up another, fast unit from a goody hut. This may sound like a slow strategy but it works on every level but the highest (which I shall have to go back and work on <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> )

I disagree with Genghis on extra techs not being important early on - that is precisely when they are imp. Having two arrows instead of one means you can get each tech twice as fast. That is so important for getting those essential techs at critical times (e.g. you can get bronze working before you've built your first unit). That is why, if I get 2 settlers at start, I always use one to build roads immediately for the city, until the miltia has explored a bit - I never use settlers to explore because it is such a waste if they go the wrong way (and you don't want to risk hitting a goody hut with them)

[This message has been edited by Supernaut (edited May 03, 2001).]
 
You say that sieges don't really work, but they do. I know because I use them all the time and I have broken even the strongest of civs. When it comes to civ1, quantity always beats out quality, in my experience. I think it's because you are giving the AI too much credit. They are not very good at using their units, responding to threats, defending their cities, attacking yours, or mananaging ANY aspect of their military. Here are a few examples:

1. The rock. This is actually a documented strategy. When you find a computer civ, find a mountain or other fortifiable spot near their capital. Make peace with them first to buy you some time, of course. Place a phalanx on the mountain and fortify it. The phalanx should now have about 10 defense or so (depends on whether it was veteran or not). You can even build a fort and put two phalanxes in it. This little fortress of yours is basically impenetrable, but who would WANT to take it? Apparently, the AI thinks any military that close to its capital is a threat, and once the computer chooses a target, it doesn't stop until it takes it. In one game, I did this to a civ that had 3 cities. 2000 years later, they still had 3 cities (roughly the same size), the same amount of tech, they were still at war with me, and neither fortified phalanx had been injured.

2. Attack/defense. The following is the best defense strategy for a city that is under heavy attack... Build city walls. Place 4 good defensive units in the city and fortify them. Get 2 counter-attack units (one fast and one powerful... ie chariot and catapult) and sentry them in the city. If an enemy unit gets within one square of the city and stops, kill it. Make sure to use the more powerful unit if you are attacking a unit which is, by nature, a defensive unit (such as a phalanx). Now, there is a good counter to this. The key is to get about 8 1-mp defensive units (militia and phalanxes). Bring along your other units as well, whatever you have, legions, catapults, chariots, cavalry. Now move your units into a ring around the city so they are all two squares away (exactly one empty square between them and the city). Once they are in position, move your defensive units into closer range, all at once. Your opponent cannot destroy them ALL... If you have legions, move them onto squares captured by phalanxes in this turn. In the next turn, fortify any that survive and wait. In the next turn, your opponent will kill off all of his counter-attack units. Now it's time for you to either fill in the gaps to complete the seige, or move your chariots and catapults in for the kill, your choice. Now to the example (finally)... I was on a continent adjacent to a powerful enemy (the english). They were constantly landing on my shores and capturing my weaker cities. I was managing to keep them from permenantly taking anything, but the war was costly. So, I saved up and filled a frigate with some good attack units and sent it off to their continent. I took a city of theirs which was positioned in a flatlands area (no mountains etc nearby). I set up 4 phalanxes, a chariot and a catapult as defense and bought city walls. The English stopped all raids against my coast and concentrated on capturing this new city of mine. Having no concept of strategy or tactics, the English tried again and again the same failed ideas. Over the next couple hundred turns of the game, as I built up the population, military power, and technology of my civilization, the English attacked and attacked this city. In that period, I had to replace 2 phalanxes that got killed. TWO! The English had lost over 200 units trying to take the city, and had not gained an inch.

So my point is the AI is stupid. Using strong and powerful defense on all of your cities is just too expensive and inefficient for defeating them. If you feel threatened by an enemy civ, don't you dare tuck your tail between your legs and brace for the attack. Instead, find out what makes them tick and defend just ONE city well, or attack just in a certain place... Keep your eyes peeled and you can't lose.

Now, you mentioned that there would be a problem with defending oneself against a strong attack in the 1 size-6 vs 3 size-4 match. If you are the 3 size-4 civ, there are several ways to combat this. The best one is packing your cities tighter. Yes, there will be overlap. But remember they are only size 4, and if you are playing a militaristic strategy, then they may stay that way for a long time. The overlap could cause problems in the endgame when you want to develop those cities, but some can always be destroyed. These tiny cities are a dime a dozen. Keeping them close allows military units to move quickly from city to city, makes creating roads easier, and if you feel lucky you can just defend the ones on the outside ring and leave the inner ones empty! Trust me, the AI is too stupid to sneak past your lines.

Here's something else, that may help you in the midfield battles... Called a lockdown. Generally you will try to spread your units out as the cover the ground between your cities and those of your enemies, and if there is a steady flow of them, they will look like a scattered grid of units covering the landscape. If a tank, chariot, or other dangerous unit should kill a unit at the edge of this grid, it is time to "lock down" the army. For units which are close to the dangerous unit, fortify them immediately wherever they are; fortifying takes a turn to take effect, so you need to start now. For the units which are a few turns away, move them onto the best nearby terrain and fortify them there. If you have offensive units like cavalry, legions, and chariots, retreat them so that they lie behind the fortified units and your enemy must move through your lines of CHEAP (remember that!) militia and phalanxes to get to them. If you have catapults, try to move them onto spots where they are in slowing terrain, so that enemy units must move one square at a time to get to them. This gives you the option either of out-running the faster unit, or simply waiting for it and striking when it gets close. If you follow these tips, the dangerous unit will be dead before it's bagged it's first legion, I'm serious. In battle, think of your units in terms of their economic value; sacrifice 3 militia before you let your chariot be touched, etc. and you will often be pleasantly surprised when the tank attacking your fortified militia DIES.

Another thing you can use to your advantage in such a scenario as you described is targetting the settlers. Use your cavalry and chariots for wiping out your opponent's settlers (which are out building roads and irrigation, often unescorted). Whereas your settlers became cities long ago that are now well defended, your opponent's settlers are all over the place. And these settlers are more than just a unit. They are more than just 4 times the cost of a militia. They are are more, even than 1 population point. What they are is the future of your opponent's civilization. He will rebuild and rebuild them, trying not to fall behind in the race for population growth, while his economic, industrial, and population growth are continually being stunted.

Most importantly, in conclusion, I must say that when playing the 3 size-4 cities civ, surviving itself is more valuable than you could ever believe. With fast population growth maintained over a long period of time you will soon reach that state of monstrous size and power so as to be untouchable by all other civs. I can remember my armies touching shore on the coast of a new nation only to find that my soldiers outnumbered the civilians of the opposing civ (I had about 160 units in the initial wave of attackers). Or when a tank threatens your lines and you find that it kills 8 units and when it is finally destroyed, your lines have advanced anyway in spite of it because you are so powerful that it did not even slow you down. You have the potential of creating an unstoppable fighting force, so don't give up this chance. Keep fighting!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/militia.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/phalanx.gif" border=0>
Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center
 
WOW! Good reply. And it worked - I take back everything I said
smile.gif


Well, not exactly - the problem was that I was thinking how your strategies would work against me, which they don't have to. So I bow to your superior knowledge of how to actually play the game (rather than dominate the world for real, which I would thrash you at
tongue.gif
) Certainly, the best form of defence is attack - and if you can distract your opponent (and the AI is easily distracted) then you are away.

Actually, since discovering this site this week I have been thinking I ought to be more aggresive in my CIV playing. When I get some time I shall try out some new strategies and see how I do. This should, of course, mean that in the meantime I should stop talking Rs on the fora - but how likely is that?
shakehead_ron.gif
 
The day is mine! Who darest to oppose me?

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/militia.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/phalanx.gif" border=0>
Civilization I Master of masters
Webmaster of Civilization I Fanatics Center
 
Originally posted by TTG:
...
Most importantly, in conclusion, I must say that when playing the 3 size-4 cities civ, surviving itself is more valuable than you could ever believe. With fast population growth maintained over a long period of time you will soon reach that state of monstrous size and power so as to be untouchable by all other civs. I can remember my armies touching shore on the coast of a new nation only to find that my soldiers outnumbered the civilians of the opposing civ (I had about 160 units in the initial wave of attackers). Or when a tank threatens your lines and you find that it kills 8 units and when it is finally destroyed, your lines have advanced anyway in spite of it because you are so powerful that it did not even slow you down. You have the potential of creating an unstoppable fighting force, so don't give up this chance. Keep fighting!



Ok TTG,
a really interresting story, but I do`n't believe that it's true. I'm playing civ1 since it was released and I know that you could never have had an army of 160 units. Any one who ever played civ in the highest mode with 5 civs or more knows that there is an unit-limit (something around 125). At least there is one in my version. You can pass it a little by "bying ennemy units", but I were never able to have more than 130 units at the same time. There is even a message of one of your ministers, which warns you that your civilization has to much units.
Ok, if there is any one here who can explain me this, it would be fine..., I often got/get problems with this limit, when I'm fighting more than 3 civs in 1900AD at the same time!!!

 
Supernaut's tactics are superb in chieftain & warlord levels, and thats the point moving to
prince early enough; Its hard to get used to a new tactic (good luck to ya sn)!
I've used TTG:s strategy in civ and civ2 about 3 months, and it seems to fit perfectly
well on the Prince-Emperor levels!
 
Originally posted by Dark omen:

Ok TTG,
a really interresting story, but I do`n't believe that it's true. I'm playing civ1 since it was released and I know that you could never have had an army of 160 units. Any one who ever played civ in the highest mode with 5 civs or more knows that there is an unit-limit (something around 125). At least there is one in my version. You can pass it a little by "bying ennemy units", but I were never able to have more than 130 units at the same time. There is even a message of one of your ministers, which warns you that your civilization has to much units.
Ok, if there is any one here who can explain me this, it would be fine..., I often got/get problems with this limit, when I'm fighting more than 3 civs in 1900AD at the same time!!!

There are two limits in the game that stop you from building too many units.

The first is the built-in software limit. This is the maximum capacity of the game, and it is definitely higher than 160... I expect 255 or perhaps even higher. I believe, but am not certain, that this limit is shared by all civs. In other words, if one civ builds a lot of units, it can prevent other civs from building any.

The second is the unit-government limit. Each government has a percentage. Despotism has the highest percentage (it's 50% or 100%, I can't remember), and Democracy has the lowest (somewhere arond 5% or possibly lower). This is the percentage of your population that can be military (including settlers, diplomats and caravans). Each unit is 10,000 people.

So if your population is 1,500,000 and your government percentage is 50%, then you can have 75 units.

If you are running into a limit of units late in the game, it is probably due to your government type. If you had used Despotism all along, you would probably not have a problem at all. However, it is probably to late to switch back to Despotism at this point without mass starvation, so you might want to try using communism for war.

There are other ways to solve the problem of not having enough units. One is to rearrange your defense. If you have 10 cities, and 3 are on a dangerous border, then the other 7 are probably safe in general. Instead of putting 4 military units in each city (40 units), put 1 defense in each of the backcountry ones and put 6 defense + 1 offense (artillery, usually) in each of the threatened ones. That's only 28 units so you are saving 12 and your defense is probably better.

Another way is to ensure that your units move quickly from their creation to attack. Do not keep stocks of attack units around. Send them immediately to war and make sure there is a railroad leading to the war so that there is no wasted time whatsoever. If 90% of your units are in transit, then your army is 10 times larger than it needs to be if you had a more efficient means of transportation. Railroads combined with a few well placed transports where the continents get close can make travel more efficient. If your units can get from their home city to the war zone in one turn, then you probably only need 10 units to conduct the war.

There are other things to remember, too. Like how to boost your population the best. A we love the president day may give your population a boost in growth rate (of course, you need the infrastructure to suport the new people). Try to maintain growth throughout the whole game, from beginning to end. At all times, you should have at least one new city somewhere (a 1, 2, or 3 level city). Lastly, remember that population growth is not constant in cities. The pattern goes like this:
(in thousands)
1 - 10
2 - 30
3 - 60
4 - 100
5 - 150
6 - 210
7 - 280
8 - 360
9 - 450
10 - 550
And so on. This means that if you have overlap between two cities, give the contested squares to the large city. If a city of size 20 and a city of size 5 are overlapping and there is another square that would allow either to grow by 1 more point, give it to the 20 point one. This will create a growth of 1.1 million people, whereas putting on the 5 point one would give you 60 thousand people.

Hope this helps.
smile.gif


------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal
<IMG SRC="http://www.strategyplanet.com/civilization3/images/ani_swordsman_thumb.gif" border=0>
 
Back
Top Bottom