Signs that you can't play Civ2 very well

[deliibrahim]

who cares about redoing, im am Turkish anyway in fact i meant placing your units around the enemy city so that it suffocates...
only pillaging i do is, like, aggressive russian cities with lots of mining around them....
.do you think its also wrong, do you say you dont even pillage mines of stronger enemies????? even the mines of cities you dont seem to take control of in a short period of time????

 

[puglover]

68 - Omg! WTH! Teh Bufalos R Gonna Eat My Setler! Kill It!

69 - Wonders R Teh Ownz But I Didn't Win After I Built One?11??/!/1

 

[Ace]

who cares about redoing, im am Turkish anyway in fact i meant placing your units around the enemy city so that it suffocates...
only pillaging i do is, like, aggressive russian cities with lots of mining around them....
.do you think its also wrong, do you say you dont even pillage mines of stronger enemies????? even the mines of cities you dont seem to take control of in a short period of time????

If you want to "suffocate" a city, that is a good way to reduce a strong city, but there is no need to pillage it. Your unit, sitting on a hex, denies that hex to the AI city, so why bother to pillage it, when, after you capture the city, you will want to use the mine or irrigation or road you just pillaged.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Your unit, sitting on a hex, denies that hex to the AI city, so why bother to pillage it, when, after you capture the city, you will want to use the mine or irrigation or road you just pillaged.

Exactly. But even more importantly, the unit will be attacked by AI attackers within the city who will hopefully die in the process.

When I place a unit close to an AI city, I have 4 goals in mind. In order of importance:
1. A death trap for my rival's attacking units. A unit with good defensive strength fortified on top of a hill or even forest/jungle/... usually succeeds in eliminating several AI attackers before its finished off.
2. Station for my delivery units (caravan, freight). The delivery units that cannot get to the city rightaway finish their turn here.
3. Distraction for my more valuable units. These could be either attackers with little defensive strengths or delivery units. The AI attacks an adjacent unit before worrying about more valuable nonadjacent ones.
4. Denying a resource (almost always a mine) to the AI city.

Like Ace, I rarely ever pillage.

 

[Specialist290]

70. You have a little obsession with Irrigating every square in the future city radius before settling the city. (Believe it or not, that's actually how I played before I found this forum...)

71. You also have a little obsession with linking all of your cities w/ roads--so much so that you build the road to the city site before settling it. (Ditto.)

 

[Ali Ardavan]

70. You have a little obsession with Irrigating every square in the future city radius before settling the city. (Believe it or not, that's actually how I played before I found this forum...)

Every square is definitely an obsession. One square, however, is warranted given the right circumstance: It is early in the game, you have a None settler that you are keeping, and your current cities land improvement needs are taken care of.

71. You also have a little obsession with linking all of your cities w/ roads--so much so that you build the road to the city site before settling it. (Ditto.)

This one is not bad at all. In fact, it is a good strategy if rivals are close by or barbarian level is high and you are relying on a few fast moving pieces for defense.

 

[ElephantU]

72. It is early in the game and you are keeping a None settler for irrigation and roading.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

72. It is early in the game and you are keeping a None settler for irrigation and roading.

What else would you keep a None settler for?
Or are you implying one should never keep a None settler around?

 

[Ace]

Early in the game, another city is much more valuable than a none settler. And none settlers don't really become important until one changes to Republic or Democracy. And one can always go bribe some new ones from the AI.

 

[ElephantU]

73. It is early in the game and you are keeping a None settler for exploration and opening huts.

 

[Andu Indorin]

I'd say between 95% and 99% of the time, quickly establishing a second city with the NON is the preferred choice.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

When great players like ElephantU, Ace, and Andu Indorin talk, one better listen carefully. Especially when they agree.

Am I the only one who keeps the None settler?

Unless you have whales around, a road can be used immediately. Irrigation is less useful but still useful if you have buffalo, wheat, or oasis. Mining is almost never useful early on.

I always keep my None settler. Its first priority is the needs of my first city. Once that is done, I build a road to my next city site (if known). I rarely run into a situation when my settler does not have something to do that is needed now or in the near future.

I guess I should run some experiments. Maybe someone already has?

 

[Specialist290]

This one is not bad at all. In fact, it is a good strategy if rivals are close by or barbarian level is high and you are relying on a few fast moving pieces for defense.

Yes, but every city? Even building roads to the advanced tribes you find waaaaay out in the boondocks before settling any cities in between? That's the point I was trying to make

(Please take careful note that, thankfully for me, I don't really do either of these anymore.)

 

[The Judge]

When great players like ElephantU, Ace, and Andu Indorin talk, one better listen carefully. Especially when they agree.

Am I the only one who keeps the None settler?

Unless it is very very early I would keep the None Settler. However (like the Civ Greats) if I had just one or two cities then I would sacrifice him as expansion is obviously paramount. I tend to go for Republic as early as possible so settlers eat 2x food and roads are important under this government for trading so if I had 4 cities I would keep him and usually put him to work irrigating the planned SSC and connecting it by road to my closest cities. Plus with Leo's this unit will one day grow to become an none-engineer.

 

[BuckyRea]

74.. You don't know what a "none settler" is, but assume because he's "none" he can't found a city.
75. So you use this "none" settler to pop goody huts and explore the far side of your continent.

 

[Flygon]

76. build a city right in a middle of a war right in a middle of the enemys contenient with no troops in the city

 

[Maniacal]

70. You have a little obsession with Irrigating every square in the future city radius before settling the city. (Believe it or not, that's actually how I played before I found this forum...)

Same here.

71. You also have a little obsession with linking all of your cities w/ roads--so much so that you build the road to the city site before settling it. (Ditto.)

As mentioned above that's a good idea, I do that most of the time.

27 - You wonder what "that camel unit" is good for, "since it can't attack".

28 - You found all your cities on mountains because you want the best defence bonus...

29 - ...but still lose because your citizens starve to death...

30 - ...and wonder why.

I used to do that when I was a kid. [I really only learned how to play Civ2 summer 2005, I had barly touched the cd for the last few years before that too).

56. In the WWII scenario you get defeated by the neutrals.

Why do the neutrals in that still have tech from the 1700s?

77. You play the neutrals in the WW2 scenario.
78. You think they have better tech than the other civs.
79. You wonder what Civ2 is.

 

[Specialist290]

80. You start on a 9x9 square island and found your first city on the center tile.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

80. You start on a 9x9 square island and found your first city on the center tile.

I actually did that on the first map I ever designed. At the time I had played 3-4 civ2 games ever.

 

[Maniacal]

81. I don't know why but I used to think prairie tiles were really good for food. In a way it makes no sense to have praierie tiles representing the Canadian Prairies as they are VERY fertile, not so so.