Small Empire

[zarakand]

Has anyone been able to play a game successfully with a small empire? I keep trying to do play a game with small (4-5 cities) empire on King difficulty and find myself struggling to do well.

What normally happens is that the computer attacks me, and in the course of defending myself I end up taking several of their cities...now I just can't bring myself to raze these cities and my small empire rapidly becomes a large empire!

I'm curious to see what it would be like to play a game where I can actually get to build all the national wonders...

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Raze cities you don't want, keep cities if they have wonders which you like.

If you enjoy a small empire like me, 4 to 5 cities is ok, but you can add a couple of puppets just for fun. They might be targetted before your centre empire, if war happens...and by then you lose nothing really.

 

[skallben]

What map size first of all?
Too small empires tend to fall behind in research. Population translates into research, gold and production, therefor you want happiness and growing cities to your happiness cap. Next patch will hurt ICS strategy so I believe getting early resources and trading will be more important early on after that it's gonna be all about happiness buildings just like now.

Until next patch there is a real issue with growing cities, at 10-12 growth, one of the main reasons to incorporate at least part of ICS tactics. As it stands, Maritime food can make a decently concentrated empire run, patch will change that aswell though. You really want to use as much of your happy faces as possible for population to keep your empire evolving.

When you conquer a city, take while to consider if it is really worth keeping. Will it grow? Can it fill any role for gold/production? Is it on a good spot? If not, raze and settle a new city better located in the area, having backup settlers is not a bad idea. Another advantage with resettling is that you do not have to struggle with temporary unhappiness, puppeting or building courthouses. Patch might change this aswell as you will be able to rush courthouses, even so - their upkeep and cost should not be underestimated.

IMO, unless you play a culture game there should allways be a plan for your empire to grow and evolve. If you find yourself with no plans of expansion and your empire is not really growing, then you should look outwards. You should allways have a plan.

 

[Babri]

I would love to see the vassal system back in ciV so that while defending the aggression of AI I can make big countries my vassals when I want to play as a small country .

 

[krunsh]

You can defend without taking city. Just stay in your territory and if they just keep loosing unit with no gains at all they will want peace. This also goes a long way toward having good relation with other civ since you are never declaring war or taking city. You can also ask other civ to go to war with them, this can realy stop the invasion quickly.

 

[Samuil]

Well, In my curent game, I am trying a one-city challenge (standard pangea map) as India, Prince difficulty... (focused on farms, not money, so my city has reached some 27 citizens, making over 100 research and culture per turn, I think it is the only way to try to keep up technologically)
You could not increase your empire even if you wanted to (one city forever)... you can only (instantly) destroy cities if you conquer them.. they just vanish...
It can go fairly well untill the Rifleman/cavalry tech (I am seriously struggling to keep up techs with the English, which is a new perspective for me in CivV), and then it starts to get tough... as empires rise, they will inevitably get a tech lead over you, as well as superior troop numbers...)

it is cool, game runs fast, it is hard...

At the very start I was at war with persia (to my east, with a huge lake between us)...
they sent several units which I managed to destroy with a swordsman, elephant archer and a catapult... (war lasted for some 50-60 turns more, but never a single unit from Persia going my way (they were busy probably busy with England, even managed to take one city from them)

Then, the Ottomans came... but unlike my Balkan forefathers, I pushed them back, AND destroyed Istanbul (which surprisingly was very close to Delhi, and their nearest city)... I got lucky with the Ottomans because they were being hammered by the English, but I still lost 2 out of my 5 units (one badly damaged longswordsman and two catapults remaining)... Quick peace with Ottomans (they settled 3 cities in the area of Istanbul probably within 15 turns

Then, I look at the map, England eats Mongolia and Ottomans, I recruit new units and go into offensive from the south...I destroy 2 cities england took from Ottomans (while loosing 3 units, they constantly have cannons for garison and longbowman nearby, a killer combination)... (while this goes on, I constantly build troops so I have at least 4 units at each time)... England does not try to invade me, instad focuses on Mongolia and Ottomans (who btw keep loosing)... I take one big English city near me, again with losses, and I retreat... England settles a city at the very spot and it grows quickly... in the meantime, I defeat several settler - riflemen duets England sends to colonise near me... Another offensive - again, city destroyed... keep pushing - York.. If I take it, London is in striking distance... Terrain unfavorable, all hills...cannon can not reach York, only artillery, lost 3 rifleman while destroying the city... London in sights, but badly damaged, and England piles cannons, knights, rifleman nearby (my only remaining units - a rifleman at 3 or 4 health, a cannon at 2 health, and an artillery...) Retreat as fast as I can... While recuperating, england builds a new city at the place of York... And it is harder and harder for me to follow tech-wise... Mongolia is eaten... Ottomans reduced to new cities (build after I destroyed Istanbul), as they lost most of the old ones to England...
I am guessing I am next in line to get a whooping by that sadistic queen, but I will do my best to defend my city... 3 artillery and 2 rifleman awaiting for the wave of enemy troops...

So, to sum things up... one-city challenge is awesome and I will certainly try it again (at the moment I am trying to get my first cultural victory)...
Resource limitations are CRAZY... playing a whole game without horses is not that fun, but it is challenging... I have no coal... I have no oil... its going to get tougher by every single turn, and I am loving it

 

[Helmling]

Has anyone been able to play a game successfully with a small empire? I keep trying to do play a game with small (4-5 cities) empire on King difficulty and find myself struggling to do well.

What normally happens is that the computer attacks me, and in the course of defending myself I end up taking several of their cities...now I just can't bring myself to raze these cities and my small empire rapidly becomes a large empire!

I'm curious to see what it would be like to play a game where I can actually get to build all the national wonders...

I know the feeling. In my best game ever I set out with much the same goal. I had a peach of a peninsula protected at the choke point by a city state that I allied myself with.

The AI, though, saw it differently. Two different civs on the mainland declared war on me and I ended up having significant puppet holdings outside of my homeland.

This sort of thing can be easily avoided, of course. Just give back conquered cities when you sign a peace deal. The AI will usually pay through the nose for their territory back, so it's still a win for you.

Granted, if big wins are what you're after, then that sort of thing won't help. Civ is, and always has been, anti-Malthusian. More population and more territory are always an advantage.

As to the National Wonders, puppet cities don't affect those anyway, so unless it's the need to be producing military units that slowing you down on that front, having conquered cities shouldn't matter.