Settling Islands

What is being missed here is; Corruption.

I don't think I missed that.

The problem is the length of time it takes to:
  • blah blah Aabraxan rambling blah.

only to have most or all of its shields and gold eaten by corruption and waste. Unless said island is very, very close to my core, that's too much work to make it worthwhile. . . .

On a side note in my first conquest game i have learned that policmen are useless...... the take about 1 shield and one gold and make it not corrupted....they cost 2 gold..... pointless....

Take a look at the net shields and gold. They have a finite range of utility, but they're not entirely useless.
 
Abra....please elaborate. What do you mean by net and utility?

You wrote:

On a side note in my first conquest game i have learned that policmen are useless...... the take about 1 shield and one gold and make it not corrupted....they cost 2 gold..... pointless....

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "they cost 2 gold." If you mean that they cost the two gold that you could otherwise collect by hiring a taxman instead, you're exactly right. However, you can switch through the various specialists and look at the effects on gold and shields. What's leftover after corruption and waste is the "net" shields and gold. For example, a taxman will produce 2 uncorrupted gold (in C3C). Hiring a policeman instead may cause you to lose the taxman's 2 gold, but the kind officer might shift a gold and a shield to uncorrupted gold. I don't have the intricacies all worked out in my own head, but according to Bede's article "The Role of the Specialist Citizen," the gold and shields made uncorrupted by the police can then be increased by multiplier buildings, unlike the taxman's gold. And one extra shield may be enough to shave a turn off of the build time on something, while one extra taxman may not generate enough gold to support cash-rushing.

However, depending on the city's corruption level, the police may or may not make enough of a difference to warrant hiring him. This is what I mean by "finite utility." Much like a courthouse, there's a range of corruption and waste that can be fixed by police. In a size 6, 90% corrupt city, one extra shield means that you get 2 uncorrupted. Probably smarter to hire taxmen. In a 60% corrupt town, however, you might go from 9 uncorrupted shields to 10. That's the difference between 12-turn tanks and 10-turn tanks.
 
if one extra shields makes the difference between a 3 turn Modern Armour and a 2 turn Modern Armour, then you basically improved productivity by 50% percent.

You have to look at it on a per case basis.
 
I usually settle islands. Mostly because I can, but sometimes it will have a purpose. For example settling an island just so the AI can't get it, or on Continents map, I will either settle or capture an island that I deem to be of strategic value. For example one that allows me to control a waterway, gives me a launching pad for invasions of another continent, or is within a suitable distance for bomber strikes.
 
I used to settle any island I could get to, but they can be hard to defend, and corruption-ridden. I found them to be not worth the effort, unless they have luxuries or strategic resources that you need. If they have those things later, then take them. Let the seafaring AI's get them, they usually do anyway. Unless YOU are a seafaring civ, because theres a bonus for coastal cities that increases commerce and seems to lessen corruption.
 
I'll settle any land that I can lay hand on if the city is not going to be too corrupt. This means I'll settle any island that is reasonably close to my homeland but will not go halfway around the world just to grab it, at least not before I can revolt to Democracy or Communism. I'll conquer any land, insular or continental, that is close to my own territory, though, if it comes to that. :)
 
I do get them occasionally though.
 
I've never got them before. But I did notice there are many more Islands in complete than vanilla.
 
I usually don't bother I grab as much land on a continent as possible. If the island is free when I'm done expanding I'll go for it.
 
I always settle small islands +tactical espically for bombers and submarine basses and a king in one of them with a lot of defensive units
 
Funny - I just settled an island with a volcano on it, of all things.

It had iron, and while I wasn't starving for iron - it was previously settled by India, who I was rapidly wiping out because I basically need more territory.

I didn't need the island, but I took it anyway and made peace, leaving India 4 cities on a corner of the continent that we shared.

I just have this thing for settling one-town islands, I guess.

With only 4 cities left, you'd be suprised what a civ will bring to the bargaining table during peace negotiations. Needless to say, India was very good to me. :lol:
 
I have never had volcanoes on my continent. And I have been playing complete for a while. Is it common for volcanoes to show up?
 
On the higher difficult levels (deity, sid), you don't have this problem because the AI will settle the islands first 90% of the cases.
You can (and should) only invest your limited settlers for cities that strenghten your economy, grab a much needed ressource or have a strategic value.
On lower difficult levels, you can settle islands for a long-term strategic profit (for example when an island is between two landmasses it makes a good place to put your bombers and prepare your 1-turn invasion force)
 
I have never had volcanoes on my continent. And I have been playing complete for a while. Is it common for volcanoes to show up?

Are you playing vanilla (which doesn't have volcanos)?

I've played, I dunno - 4 or 5 games on the Conquests edition and have never had a civ without a volcano or 6 somewhere in my territory.
 
No, I just got complete a few weeks ago. I always see the AI have volcanoes in their territory but I never have any. I'd like to see the explosion one day :sad:.
 
Back
Top Bottom