shield waste

Corruption is part of the game. If you have a lot of cities with 1 shield production, that mean you have at least 64 cities of good production in your empire. If everything goes well, you are pumping out at least 32 modern amours in every turn. Isn't that enough?
 
The 1.21 patch toned down corruption to the point where I find it worthwhile to rush courthouses in very far off cities. The combo of republic or democracy, a courthouse, and WLTKD is pretty big, and can make a useless city productive.

For those cities which you know will never, ever be productive, there are a couple of options, depending on what you want.

If you care about score, then you want to let them grow, while buying happiness improvements.

If you care only about efficiency, letting them cap off at size 12 (or 6, if they don't have a river/lake) and turning as many citizens into tax men or scientists is the way to go.

I've also had games where I had a group of 1-shield cities that I set to build workers. 1 worker per city every 10 turns... slowly but surely they built up.

-Arrian
 
Originally posted by Arrian
If you care about score, then you want to let them grow, while buying happiness improvements.
Click to expand...
Yup, and the happiness improvement is dirt cheap. A market is all you need.:) And if you build or take control of the Adam Smith Trading Company, you don't even have to pay upkeep for that market. A well developed and happy city that requires no more attention from you, isn't that great?:)

I wish they increase the max limit of 256 cities in the next patch. How about 512 cities? 256 is not really enough.
 
There should be some corruption in a city that has just been conquered but that should gradually reduce once the citizens accepted that they are under a new administration. Take East Timor as an example, huge corruption under Indonesia, less now at independence. Isn't that what reality is like? Wonder if that can be incorporated into the game.
 
Originally posted by Moonsinger
Corruption is part of the game. If you have a lot of cities with 1 shield production, that mean you have at least 64 cities of good production in your empire. If everything goes well, you are pumping out at least 32 modern amours in every turn. Isn't that enough?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

What corruption was: a cheap fix by Firaxis to slow down too fast civilization development.

Certain cities became useless for production even with corruption-reducers, and I made temples and cathedrals reducers also.

But, if we turn down corruption with the Editor slider we are going to get too fast production and techs. Developing tanks in the 16th century destroys what is left of realism.

The entire issue of corruption and the speed of a civ's progress needs to be overhauled by Firaxis. Distant cities must be made somewhat productive, but not so much so you can have "off the charts" production. All this should have been resolved in playtesting before the game was marketed. Perhaps increasing the shield costs for some units (such as battleships), and those for techs, needs to be increased.

BTW, with production so poor in distant cities it is ironic indeed that the AI insists on cranking out a horde of settlers (Settler Diarrhea) and sending them everywhere to every open tile even in tundra and jungle.
 
Originally posted by Sparhawk
There should be some corruption in a city that has just been conquered but that should gradually reduce once the citizens accepted that they are under a new administration. Take East Timor as an example, huge corruption under Indonesia, less now at independence. Isn't that what reality is like? Wonder if that can be incorporated into the game.
Click to expand...

I think this is reflected in the resistance/unproductive citizens. as they get used to your government (and you stop war against their mother country), they come under control and become productive members of society
 
So, OK, we all agree Firaxis made a mistake on this wastage thing. Can we look forward to Civilization IV where everything is OK like dogfighting for fighters, more expensive battleships etc heheheh
 
I don't think they did make a mistake, I like it as it is, it's realistic enough for me.
 
But what on....7/7 shields lost to corruption in this outlying city that ain't even some 10 tiles from the capital....it's simply incomprehensible
 
Originally posted by Zouave


Indeed.

What corruption was: a cheap fix by Firaxis to slow down too fast civilization development.
Click to expand...

They put it in so that there would be no advantage for people to cram cities in ICS style. While they took a bite out of it, they did not kill the beast. Fact of old games were that 2 cities always outproduced 1 in the same space. While, with the corruption limits of # cities in Civ3 combats this, it does not mean that ICS is gone, because 2 cities with temples will always out-culture a civ with 1 city with a temple. Unfinished business...

There is value in holding other lands. Score, territory towards the domination limit, resource & luxury holding, worker production, culture production, draft source, and more important, land your opponents can not take freely. I always make settlers until all land is covered. I guess Zouave would call me a cheat.
 
This is a little bit out of point but you shouldn't cover the whole land, especially at regent's level or higher. Leave some space for the AI to build cities surrounded by your cities and then overwhelm them culturally. It'll be like the AI building cities for you. You can't defend yourself properly, build settlers and build city improvements to advance culture at the same time.
 
You can't possibly cover the whole land anyway. If you do that, you will win by "donmination" victory. Morever, if you play with 15 other civs, you won't have chance to cover the whole land.
 
Originally posted by Sparhawk
This is a little bit out of point but you shouldn't cover the whole land, especially at regent's level or higher. Leave some space for the AI to build cities surrounded by your cities and then overwhelm them culturally. It'll be like the AI building cities for you. You can't defend yourself properly, build settlers and build city improvements to advance culture at the same time.
Click to expand...

Not a good idea. They don't always build in a position ideal for you. And if they do, that's no guarantee that you'll overwhelm them culturally. And if you're a good enough player and don't overextend yourself, you can defend, build settlers and build culture at the same time. Just get your balance right.

So I reckon you should cover as much of the map as you can in reasonable time. It's really annoying when the computer civs fill your gaps for you.
 
Originally posted by chiefpaco

I guess Zouave would call me a cheat.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is something to putting holds on settlements in the early game. However, this should not be done as he likes by preventing the AI from building them. Since as you have pointed out that is a reasonable strategy and can be a quite strong one (gaining control of as many resources as possible). Instead putting some kind of limits on the number fo settlements you can control in the earlier ages might work better.

Or perhaps even changing the one luxery is sufficient for every city model. Maybe 1 luxery for ten cities. Therefore if you build too many cities you are going to need many more luxeries. Also it would reduce the inequality in lexery value somewhat. Since now a luxery (assuming equal happry faces gerenated) would be worth the same for a small and a large civ. As the large civ would only be able to pacify a portion of its cities, instead of every one.
 
Originally posted by etj4Eagle


Or perhaps even changing the one luxery is sufficient for every city model. Maybe 1 luxery for ten cities. Therefore if you build too many cities you are going to need many more luxeries. Also it would reduce the inequality in lexery value somewhat. Since now a luxery (assuming equal happry faces gerenated) would be worth the same for a small and a large civ. As the large civ would only be able to pacify a portion of its cities, instead of every one.
Click to expand...

Cool idea. Would give more meaning to excess luxuries that would not be excess anymore.

What we do not have in real life, I don't think, is an example of a successful dominating single empire. Not very versed in world history myself, I can think of a few large empires (for their time) that collapsed (because of size?) but none today would be close to a domination limit so I guess that says something. I believe there would be many inefficiencies if one nation owned, say, all of North America and South America and parts of Europe too.
 
as for Sparhwaks idea: I use that one extensively on Monarch level, I intentionally over-extend, then rush Temples. The AI builds Tundra cities in the same time. Then, their better cities start flipping to me :D

This means I have to pay quite some tribute, but it has never failed me yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
shield/beakers ratio
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
justanick
J
K
Policemen
Replies
6
Views
818
kaskavel
K
K
Another starting position
Replies
6
Views
530
kaskavel
K
K
Happiness/entertainers/rel buildings
Replies
15
Views
963
justanick
J
K
Show me how you farm
Replies
3
Views
620
jarred!
jarred!
Back
Top Bottom