specialized cities
- Thread starter fephisto
- Start date
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
Specailes cities are better
but i NEVER put cities on wealth
but i NEVER put cities on wealth
I agree. Specialized cities are much better in the early game, and almost required at higher play levels.
Wealth is wasteful. You get better conversion by creating a unit- moving it to other city and then disbanding it. Will only convert to wealth if facing a small cashflow problem.
Wealth is wasteful. You get better conversion by creating a unit- moving it to other city and then disbanding it. Will only convert to wealth if facing a small cashflow problem.
So find terrains of high food, high shields, and high comerce
so it will support settlers, military, and money
So river, mountain, sea
settlers will contain(at early age):
granaries
aqueduct
hospital
happy stuff if necassary
military will contain (early aage):
barracks happy stuff
aqueduct
hospital
money will contain(early age):
harbor
marketplace
aqueduct
hospital
happy stuff
Am I a little to anaylitical?
so it will support settlers, military, and money
So river, mountain, sea
settlers will contain(at early age):
granaries
aqueduct
hospital
happy stuff if necassary
military will contain (early aage):
barracks happy stuff
aqueduct
hospital
money will contain(early age):
harbor
marketplace
aqueduct
hospital
happy stuff
Am I a little to anaylitical?
eighty
Boycott Milk
Wealth can be useful, and can convert better than disbanding units. Here is an example from an emperor game, after discovering economics. Cavalry cost 80 shields, and disbanding them generates 20, so the rate is 4 to 1. So 4 shields are being spent to make 1 somewhere else. But wealth converts at 4 shields to 1 gold also. How is this worse? It is only a worse conversion if you use the gold from wealth to hurry production, which is what I would assume you would be using the disbanding units for. In this case, hurrying costs 4 gold for every 1 shield (unless it is the first building turn, then its 8 to 1). To hurry with gold from wealth would actually be using 16 shields to get 1 somewhere else (4 shields to 1 gold and then 4 gold to 1 shield; 4x4).
Consider: say a city produces 24 shields a turn. It would take it 4 turns to produce an 80 shield cavalry, but it would actually make 96 shields, generating 16 shields of waste. On wealth that same city would make 6 gold per turn with a net of 24 gold, and no waste. Of course a city making 27 shields still makes 4 gold, so watch out for that. and blah blah blah, yadda yadda
before economics wealth probably should not be used. Unless you want to lose quickly.
After economics wealth can be important when you are in a democracy (or any other gov above its unit support limit) and need some tech, but don't make enough gold per turn to support units/maintenance etc. Setting a city that makes 60 shields a turn on wealth gives 15 gpt to help advance science.
Consider: say a city produces 24 shields a turn. It would take it 4 turns to produce an 80 shield cavalry, but it would actually make 96 shields, generating 16 shields of waste. On wealth that same city would make 6 gold per turn with a net of 24 gold, and no waste. Of course a city making 27 shields still makes 4 gold, so watch out for that. and blah blah blah, yadda yadda
before economics wealth probably should not be used. Unless you want to lose quickly.
After economics wealth can be important when you are in a democracy (or any other gov above its unit support limit) and need some tech, but don't make enough gold per turn to support units/maintenance etc. Setting a city that makes 60 shields a turn on wealth gives 15 gpt to help advance science.
fephisto, hospitals are early age? 
The settlers would probably only have grainaries, and not even that if flood plains. Producing the settlers and workers from it keeps the populaton low. After done producing settlers (after land grab, or when empire radius makes travel time for settlers take to long from that city) add things to make it produce wealth, happiness, growth, and science. Basically move settler/worker production outward as your empire grows.
What you classify as military- I generally just term production- and once they reach a certain size/stage in the game- I have it produce a marketplace- and later a bank. So it produces extra money while it is producing units.
If not running communism, you might also decide to make one of your core cities a super-science city. Build any science improvements in that one city so all the effects stack. If there were multiple commerce improvements I would consider making a wealth city.
Not saying that is the definative way to do it. Its just what I do.
Eighty. You example fits into my "small cashflow problem." My statement was related to creating "wealth cities". I generally try to make my empire run without relying on planning cities to create wealth. Another point where wealth can be useful, if no additional settlers or workers are needed in the near future, setting 95% corrupt one shield producing cities to wealth generates one extra wealth even though it produces only one shield. It seems to round up in this case and I don't mind the one to one conversion.
The settlers would probably only have grainaries, and not even that if flood plains. Producing the settlers and workers from it keeps the populaton low. After done producing settlers (after land grab, or when empire radius makes travel time for settlers take to long from that city) add things to make it produce wealth, happiness, growth, and science. Basically move settler/worker production outward as your empire grows.What you classify as military- I generally just term production- and once they reach a certain size/stage in the game- I have it produce a marketplace- and later a bank. So it produces extra money while it is producing units.
If not running communism, you might also decide to make one of your core cities a super-science city. Build any science improvements in that one city so all the effects stack. If there were multiple commerce improvements I would consider making a wealth city.
Not saying that is the definative way to do it. Its just what I do.
Eighty. You example fits into my "small cashflow problem." My statement was related to creating "wealth cities". I generally try to make my empire run without relying on planning cities to create wealth. Another point where wealth can be useful, if no additional settlers or workers are needed in the near future, setting 95% corrupt one shield producing cities to wealth generates one extra wealth even though it produces only one shield. It seems to round up in this case and I don't mind the one to one conversion.
eighty
Boycott Milk
Ahh yes, Muddy, it was specifically the conversion factor of wealth that I took issue with and I didn't realize how you defined the small cashflow.
Anyhow, I also specialize a few of my cities, but usually only for production and a science if I can get the wonders. I think improvements like library are important for all cities because it gives both science and culture and culture is good so that you don't get assimilated.
mmmm, and banks in every city.....
Often times cities will outgrow their food source or reach a temporary population and enter shortage or zero growth. I use this as an opportunity to produce settler or worker. This way the population goes down and once again the food the city is producing is being used for growth. And I don't think starvation makes them happy.
Sometimes, if the city makes enough shields and food, it can waffle between 2 or 3 population points and make a settler every few turns. Or a worker every turn. In fact, if I am facing starvation in a lot of cities, building workers is a good way to reduce their population (this can happen from war weariness) since you can add the workers back on later.
Anyhow, I also specialize a few of my cities, but usually only for production and a science if I can get the wonders. I think improvements like library are important for all cities because it gives both science and culture and culture is good so that you don't get assimilated.
mmmm, and banks in every city.....
Often times cities will outgrow their food source or reach a temporary population and enter shortage or zero growth. I use this as an opportunity to produce settler or worker. This way the population goes down and once again the food the city is producing is being used for growth. And I don't think starvation makes them happy.
Sometimes, if the city makes enough shields and food, it can waffle between 2 or 3 population points and make a settler every few turns. Or a worker every turn. In fact, if I am facing starvation in a lot of cities, building workers is a good way to reduce their population (this can happen from war weariness) since you can add the workers back on later.
Mah hospitals, mind left me there. Yeah I'd see why you wouldn't want to need wealth cities...I can't stand specialized cities though, because when I go to war I want all of my guys to be able to kick out some guys! aka I like to go to total war.
Culture is for....Bah! don't need it ifn you got a military!
science is something you don't need, let the other civs do it for you.
But now were getting off the subject
Culture is for....Bah! don't need it ifn you got a military!
science is something you don't need, let the other civs do it for you.
But now were getting off the subject
Banks in every city? No, some cities don't get to the size/stage to make them worthwhile. Tundra or corruption are two things that come to mind when not to build one. Marketplaces I normally build if I have at least 3 luxuries. It might not improve cashflow in 95% corrupt cities(not sure if it rounds up or down), but maintainence costs or the same as a temple.
Keeping the population growing constantly is fairly smart. It is one of the things a city produces. If you just let it sit you are losing some growth potintial. Though at some point you just don't need anymore and they aren't worth paying maintence for, unless your playing communism.
Keeping the population growing constantly is fairly smart. It is one of the things a city produces. If you just let it sit you are losing some growth potintial. Though at some point you just don't need anymore and they aren't worth paying maintence for, unless your playing communism.