Yes .
Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
- Status
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
If you go past the OCN, it says mass corruption will occur in those towns/cities.
Is the corruption so bad that you cant get shields past 1?
Is the corruption so bad that you cant get shields past 1?
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Once you go far enough over the limit, then yes (unfortunately).
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
How many turns are there between 850AD and 1450AD? Eighty?
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
Ok, I have a reputation question...
The Americans declare war on me.
I make a Military Alliance with the Arabs against the Americans.
Several turns later, I make peace with America (Arabs are still at war).
Oh drat, my rep is trashed...or is it?
Cause later, the Dutch would trade me in gpt... which I found kinda odd. Cause if you break any kind of treaty, isnt your rep broken?
The Americans declare war on me.
I make a Military Alliance with the Arabs against the Americans.
Several turns later, I make peace with America (Arabs are still at war).
Oh drat, my rep is trashed...or is it?
Cause later, the Dutch would trade me in gpt... which I found kinda odd. Cause if you break any kind of treaty, isnt your rep broken?
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
The dutch will give you gpt...
they wont' take gpt from you.
they wont' take gpt from you.
Right, it should have been.
Did the Dutch have contact with America? That's one case where you can trash your rep with one civ, but still have it good with another. They don't have contact, so they can't trade notes on what happened.
And what AT said.
Did the Dutch have contact with America? That's one case where you can trash your rep with one civ, but still have it good with another. They don't have contact, so they can't trade notes on what happened.
And what AT said.
Keroro
Dororo: Ninja Frog
It also depends how many turns there were between the alliance being signed and you making peace with the Americans. I think that you have to keep the alliance for at least 10 turns to avoid a reputation hit.
And what AT and Turner said.
And what AT and Turner said.
Actually, it would be 20 turns.
Two things:vmxa said:
1.) Too many X's. City radius is 2 tiles in each direction, so city radiuses (radii?) will border one another with what I said - CxxxxC, not CxxxxxC.
2.) What if every tile to the right of city 2 is hills, jungle, or swamp?
It's true that you don't get to use all 20 tiles in the early game, but it's also true that you'll shaft yourself if you relocate a city later on, and it's ALSO true that if you CAN use all 20 tiles, your city will be better than one that can only use 14. So yeah, it's easier in the early game but if you find yourself in a big, long game and find your opponent in the modern age with a city setup like what I described, invariably s/he will have a stronger economy and thus better civilization than you. =P
I fully agree that in the early game, CxxC is great. One-turn troop movement makes all the difference in many cases. But in the late game, those cities that have stood the test of time on their own will be the greatest cities in the world. Overstocking on defenders and keeping stack-crushing units like catapults handy can help your slightly-harder-to-defend cities stand that test.
Everything you said is wrong. I won't find myself doing anything in the modern age as I will have won. I use CxxC for all levels with zero strain and I mean all levels.
The AI will have a stronger econ than me at Sid for most of the game, but I will over take in in the end. The only time I go into modern ages in on a contient or island Sid game of conquest only.
In that case I will probably make 4 to 6 metros and steal tiles from surrounding cities. I will not abandon any and I will by then have the strongest econ. My metros will be making 100+ shields.
In normal domination games where you win in the IA, I do not research sanitation, nor will I steal it. I just do not need metros. In any event you can only use 12 tiles for more than 3/4 of the game even if you play into the modern age. So all those tiles went begging.
If I have to found a town with all land tiles being jungle/swaps/hill/mountain, it will at least have some coast tiles. In the rare case that I can get nothing, so what? I gives me unit support and sits there.
These places are not common and tend to come later, after I have already founded a lot of towns.
Overstocking on defense is for losers, plain and simple. I leave that crap for Emperor or lower players. Overstocking on anything is not playing optimally, but you have already confessed that you do not play optimally.
Let me say again, I do not know any players that I respect that will play wide town placement. Every game ever posted here that was having trouble played just like you discribe. I take their game that they say they are losing and bust it before the time that they posted losing. If they post a 4000BC save, if not I win from where they were about to lose.
When someone post they play CxxxxC, I presume they are Monarch or less players. Probably struggle even at those levels. That is why they end up in the Modern Age.
So go ahead and have your fun, just do not waste either of our time telling me how it is the way to go.
The AI will have a stronger econ than me at Sid for most of the game, but I will over take in in the end. The only time I go into modern ages in on a contient or island Sid game of conquest only.
In that case I will probably make 4 to 6 metros and steal tiles from surrounding cities. I will not abandon any and I will by then have the strongest econ. My metros will be making 100+ shields.
In normal domination games where you win in the IA, I do not research sanitation, nor will I steal it. I just do not need metros. In any event you can only use 12 tiles for more than 3/4 of the game even if you play into the modern age. So all those tiles went begging.
If I have to found a town with all land tiles being jungle/swaps/hill/mountain, it will at least have some coast tiles. In the rare case that I can get nothing, so what? I gives me unit support and sits there.
These places are not common and tend to come later, after I have already founded a lot of towns.
Overstocking on defense is for losers, plain and simple. I leave that crap for Emperor or lower players. Overstocking on anything is not playing optimally, but you have already confessed that you do not play optimally.
Let me say again, I do not know any players that I respect that will play wide town placement. Every game ever posted here that was having trouble played just like you discribe. I take their game that they say they are losing and bust it before the time that they posted losing. If they post a 4000BC save, if not I win from where they were about to lose.
When someone post they play CxxxxC, I presume they are Monarch or less players. Probably struggle even at those levels. That is why they end up in the Modern Age.
So go ahead and have your fun, just do not waste either of our time telling me how it is the way to go.
azzaman333
meh
Personally, i find CxxxC suits my needs most of the time. Is it likely that my preference for CxxxC over CxxC is holding me back from levels where the other civs start with a free settler?
Note that I am not trying to get anyone to switch, only to not try to convince me that CxxxxC is better. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it, but it is not better. It will cost you something, that is all.
The great thing about Civ, is we can all play our games the way we want too. If you like ICS, great. If you prefer wide placement, that's fine too.
What's important is that we're getting enjoyment from the game by playing it the way we want to, instead of blindly following forumlas to get to an end result.
What's important is that we're getting enjoyment from the game by playing it the way we want to, instead of blindly following forumlas to get to an end result.
I respect your strategy, vmxa, as well as your opinion and your experience.
I did not say that CxxxxC was better. I went out of my way to point out what was wrong with it, in fact, and only THEN did I note that a fully grown city with all of its own tiles is, by its very definition, BETTER than a small city. More support under most governments at metro level, 21 tiles of resources coming in every turn, etc. etc. If you don't make it to the late game, having already won, then that's fine, and congratulations. The first time I beat a game of Civ1, I got gunpowder 3 turns before I killed off my last rival.
But since then I've found that I rather enjoy letting rivals live and getting to the modern ages in all 3 Civs.
Again, I will say that CxxC is more efficient for the early game in terms of defending and expansion, but if you get to the late game where you DO have hospitals and you DO hit Pop 22+, then CxxxxC -is- superior IN THAT CASE.
I'm not arguing with you on anything that I can see. You praise the early expansion, I praise the late production. The only thing I have a problem with is this:
So play how you like; it apparently works very well for you. But please refrain from calling me a loser and digging in subtle insults simply because my playing style is different - my playing style works for me.
That is all.
I did not say that CxxxxC was better. I went out of my way to point out what was wrong with it, in fact, and only THEN did I note that a fully grown city with all of its own tiles is, by its very definition, BETTER than a small city. More support under most governments at metro level, 21 tiles of resources coming in every turn, etc. etc. If you don't make it to the late game, having already won, then that's fine, and congratulations. The first time I beat a game of Civ1, I got gunpowder 3 turns before I killed off my last rival.
But since then I've found that I rather enjoy letting rivals live and getting to the modern ages in all 3 Civs.
Again, I will say that CxxC is more efficient for the early game in terms of defending and expansion, but if you get to the late game where you DO have hospitals and you DO hit Pop 22+, then CxxxxC -is- superior IN THAT CASE.
I'm not arguing with you on anything that I can see. You praise the early expansion, I praise the late production. The only thing I have a problem with is this:
Wasting tiles is not 'optimal'. Stunting your city size in cases where you could otherwise support a larger city is not 'optimal'.
So play how you like; it apparently works very well for you. But please refrain from calling me a loser and digging in subtle insults simply because my playing style is different - my playing style works for me.
That is all.
Moderator Action: That's quite enough of the flaming each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Sorry I did not think any flaming was going on as nothing was said directly to attack anyone. I did not say the poster was a loser and that was not my intent. I have no idea about that subject.
I meant that of all the games I have seen or played or reviewed by players not doing so well, that is the style they used and it was not working for them.
I know soild players can easily make the style work, I just don't know why they would.
I meant that of all the games I have seen or played or reviewed by players not doing so well, that is the style they used and it was not working for them.
I know soild players can easily make the style work, I just don't know why they would.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
well, there is a compromise. You can start out CxxC, and then move to OCP when you have hospitals, if you want.
as to why they would use it... well, they like modern age games. Why do people deliberately try a 5CC or 1CC?
that said - CxxC is clearly more efficient early in the game, and getting off to a fast start really, really helps - there are two reasons for it:
A) you get more cities into the same space and work more tiles
B) Your core cities have slightly less corruption.
Thus, your empire, which may have less land after expansion then your emperor/demigod/deity opponents, may well be more productive. Add in your better use of workers, smarter placement, and settler factories, and you might even have a larger civ then those guys who started with an extra settler!!
That said - optimizing for metros is a perfectly reasonable style, and would be most useful once you get to the IA. I wonder if it is a more efficient way to play a space ship race game? certainly, fewer cities in the same space gives less corruption once all the tiles are used, plus less maintenance because of fewer buildings... hmm...
as to why they would use it... well, they like modern age games. Why do people deliberately try a 5CC or 1CC?
that said - CxxC is clearly more efficient early in the game, and getting off to a fast start really, really helps - there are two reasons for it:
A) you get more cities into the same space and work more tiles
B) Your core cities have slightly less corruption.
Thus, your empire, which may have less land after expansion then your emperor/demigod/deity opponents, may well be more productive. Add in your better use of workers, smarter placement, and settler factories, and you might even have a larger civ then those guys who started with an extra settler!!
That said - optimizing for metros is a perfectly reasonable style, and would be most useful once you get to the IA. I wonder if it is a more efficient way to play a space ship race game? certainly, fewer cities in the same space gives less corruption once all the tiles are used, plus less maintenance because of fewer buildings... hmm...
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
AutomatedTeller said:
You'd have to take a detour over Sanitation which is of questionable value in a fast research game. Or, you're only able to get metro's once someone else researched it.
And don't be deceived on maintenance cost. You need a hospital to begin with. You need more happyness because your cities are larger and that might bring caths and temples back into the equation. You face a new problem, pollution, that you can only combat with additional improvements.
- Status
