REXing
- Thread starter OMG Hexes
- Start date
Seeing as how the tiles are now hexes it doesn't matter which direction you go. Go for the spot with the best resources and I don't think "REXing" in it's literal Civ IV meaning is that viable in Civ V, but if you've just picked up the game I suggest you play around with it for a bit.
I think you misunderstood him, I believe what he meant by horizontal and vertical expansion was to horizontal is building multiple cities, while vertical is developing existing cities.
If that's the case then not too sure yet, both causes its own problems if not managed correctly. I think it depends on the type of victory you are going for. In my last game I was going for a culture victory where I only had 5 cities. The more cities you have the more culture you need to get for social policies. In my current game I am doing conquest and I have several cities giving me access to a lot of luxuries and strategic resources along with gold and science points.
If that's the case then not too sure yet, both causes its own problems if not managed correctly. I think it depends on the type of victory you are going for. In my last game I was going for a culture victory where I only had 5 cities. The more cities you have the more culture you need to get for social policies. In my current game I am doing conquest and I have several cities giving me access to a lot of luxuries and strategic resources along with gold and science points.
Yes, in ciV, it's detrimental to rex without surplus happiness... or projected happiness...
if you're rexing next to luxuries you don't already have, or if potentially you're about to make a city state ally with a luxury you don't have, then you can rex 2 cities. If you choose certain policy tracks like piety, it makes it easier, too.
All in all, though, it's very difficult to have more than 6 cities by 500AD, for example. If you do, you need to keep population to a bare minimum and all you've created is a weak, spread out target for the ai. I keep saying 5 by 500AD because every game I play, no matter difficulty, it's all I seem to be able to manage with healthy production and income.
1400AD is around 8 cities usually, with capital and 2 others being 12-14 pop. One or two might be puppets.
Then you have a "foundation". On standard speed you're building happiness buildings in 10-14 turns, making city state allies and fleshing out better policy tracks.
if you're rexing next to luxuries you don't already have, or if potentially you're about to make a city state ally with a luxury you don't have, then you can rex 2 cities. If you choose certain policy tracks like piety, it makes it easier, too.
All in all, though, it's very difficult to have more than 6 cities by 500AD, for example. If you do, you need to keep population to a bare minimum and all you've created is a weak, spread out target for the ai. I keep saying 5 by 500AD because every game I play, no matter difficulty, it's all I seem to be able to manage with healthy production and income.
1400AD is around 8 cities usually, with capital and 2 others being 12-14 pop. One or two might be puppets.
Then you have a "foundation". On standard speed you're building happiness buildings in 10-14 turns, making city state allies and fleshing out better policy tracks.
yeah, what binjack said
Ok, so both vertical and horizontal starts are good, depending on your goals. Also true REXing a la previous versions of civ is bad unless you have a significant happiness cushion. This mirrors my experience.
I had been playing this like SMAX, doing a horizontal blitz for the first 30 or so turns to get 4-5 cities and establish my borders. And then switching over to vertical expansion until I have the National wonder that libraries in every city unlocks. At that point, I'd usually go back to horizontal expansion and conquer someone.
But yeah, happiness was the one thing that just kept slowing me down. I got to the point of vertically growing until I was able to build a ton of colosseums before I went horizontal again.
It looks like I've got to rethink that...
Ok, so both vertical and horizontal starts are good, depending on your goals. Also true REXing a la previous versions of civ is bad unless you have a significant happiness cushion. This mirrors my experience.
I had been playing this like SMAX, doing a horizontal blitz for the first 30 or so turns to get 4-5 cities and establish my borders. And then switching over to vertical expansion until I have the National wonder that libraries in every city unlocks. At that point, I'd usually go back to horizontal expansion and conquer someone.
But yeah, happiness was the one thing that just kept slowing me down. I got to the point of vertically growing until I was able to build a ton of colosseums before I went horizontal again.
It looks like I've got to rethink that...
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
I am actually starting to think Happiness is just not the motivator it was in previous games. As long as you focus on production, and trade routes, lots of small cities can actually be efficient.
Production let's you produce colloseums or other early happiness things.
Trade routes help pay for them, make it easier to defend.
I think that every city you plant next to a new luxury is always worth it. Pretty much every darn one.
Edit: The thing about getting negative happiness, is that it doesn't actually stop you from building or researching, or making money. Just the growth of those things. If you suddenly get a big penalty to happiness, you don't have to disband units, or stop researching. If you 'dig yourself into a hole' you just need to build some happiness buildings, or make buddies with a few city states.
In civ 4, crashing your economy via overexpansion could take the entire rest of the game to recover from.
Production let's you produce colloseums or other early happiness things.
Trade routes help pay for them, make it easier to defend.
I think that every city you plant next to a new luxury is always worth it. Pretty much every darn one.
Edit: The thing about getting negative happiness, is that it doesn't actually stop you from building or researching, or making money. Just the growth of those things. If you suddenly get a big penalty to happiness, you don't have to disband units, or stop researching. If you 'dig yourself into a hole' you just need to build some happiness buildings, or make buddies with a few city states.
In civ 4, crashing your economy via overexpansion could take the entire rest of the game to recover from.
PTM
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 93
REXing is more viable than in Civ4, I don't know what people are talking about who say otherwise. Without maintenance (tied to commerce, thus tech), the only thing stopping you is your unwillingness to take a 3-4 turn growth penalty (given that each city will, unlike Civ4, essentially self-sustain near-*immediately* if founded near a non-surplus luxury). In Emperor difficulty games, I routinely have like 9 cities, along with positive happiness, by 0 AD (should be 1 AD...), and I know I should be going for more. This despite suffering occupation 
, given that I often acquire at least 2-3 of those cities via conquest.
In Civ4, you REXed until your slider hit 0-20%, then consolidated for several turns. That consolidation required pop growth in each of your cities, cottage growth on each of your tiles, etc. (specialist econs could alleviate this "cool down" period to a degree). In Civ5 there is no consolidation phase, particularly because you can "build"
in your older cities to accommodate newer or to-be-founded cities if necessary.
, given that I often acquire at least 2-3 of those cities via conquest.In Civ4, you REXed until your slider hit 0-20%, then consolidated for several turns. That consolidation required pop growth in each of your cities, cottage growth on each of your tiles, etc. (specialist econs could alleviate this "cool down" period to a degree). In Civ5 there is no consolidation phase, particularly because you can "build"
in your older cities to accommodate newer or to-be-founded cities if necessary.CoffeeMonster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14
I REX pretty hard in the early / midgame, and it's fine as long as you:
1) expand at +5 or +10 happiness locations (two diff luxuries)
2) take over all the closest iron/horse locations for denial purposes
3) have a viable military to defend said expansions
Three is harder to keep up if you over expand, so keep in mind who and where your neighbors are. If they start insulting your army, it's probably time to up the military spending. =)
1) expand at +5 or +10 happiness locations (two diff luxuries)
2) take over all the closest iron/horse locations for denial purposes
3) have a viable military to defend said expansions
Three is harder to keep up if you over expand, so keep in mind who and where your neighbors are. If they start insulting your army, it's probably time to up the military spending. =)
I remember reading somewhere and also seeing this in my current game that having high unhappiness affects your units in combat. I created a puppet state out of one of their cities and he was easily able to destroy my spearman with a newly created spearman in one hit. Of course this could have just been a fluke and the AI got a lucky roll on me.
@OP (Original Poster), FYI (for your information), ICS means Infinite City Sprawl. ICS worked very well Civ versions before IV because of the "free" citizen that came with the city. IV specifically tried to limit it with city maintenance costs based on number of cities and their distance from your capital. That is all gone in V.
REX is Rapid Early eXpansion. It works in all civ versions.
ICS was never a strat I liked. I knew it was viable though (and laughed pretty hard watching the guy eat his Civ 4 box when he lost that bet).
I guess, I'm afraid of unhappiness the same way I used to be in early civ games when even -1 meant that your city just stopped functioning.
I guess, I'm afraid of unhappiness the same way I used to be in early civ games when even -1 meant that your city just stopped functioning.
