Strategy discussion

[onedreamer]

Rennes is in Brittany, it can't be there It's northwest from Bordeaux.

Why are you guys so worried about not overlapping cities or super big cities in RFC ? I mean, it's not regular Civ4. I don't like building too much outside historical borders since it causes instability, and overlapping is not a problem since there are so many resources that generally you can have big cities with much fewer worked tiles than in Civ4 and hence a lot of specialists.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Because:

1. We like big empires and 2 small cities have double the upkeep and stability hit than 1 large city. We're not just playing for UHVs any more.
2. Large cities can support more specialists and hence generate great people quicker
3. Building a military unit in 1 turn in 1 city (as opposed to 2 units in 2 turns in 2 cities) is better, you can fly them out every turn without lag.
4. As blizzrd has pointed out, even though numerically 2 small cities may add up to the same population as a large city, the large city has more population when counted in AP or UN votes.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

I've seen Bath too (once). Interesting that people's experiences are so different in this regard.

Cheers, Luke

 

[Quotey]

I can't imagine founding Newcastle or Manchester to be honest. It's almost always London, Inverness, Plymouth, Dublin, Durban (gold in SA)

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I can't imagine founding Newcastle or Manchester to be honest. It's almost always London, Inverness, Plymouth, Dublin, Durban (gold in SA)

Plymouth has too much coast (i.e. not enough production) and overlaps with London though. Newcastle has the benefit of capturing the offshore oil later, and as long as you found Southampton it will grow to a decent size (17).

If Inverness wasn't prebuilt, I would actually just build 1S of Inverness on the cow (Glasgow? Edinburgh?) to capture everything in Scotland, including the fishes and oil.

 

[onedreamer]

Because:

1. We like big empires and 2 small cities have double the upkeep and stability hit than 1 large city. We're not just playing for UHVs any more.
2. Large cities can support more specialists and hence generate great people quicker
3. Building a military unit in 1 turn in 1 city (as opposed to 2 units in 2 turns in 2 cities) is better, you can fly them out every turn without lag.
4. As blizzrd has pointed out, even though numerically 2 small cities may add up to the same population as a large city, the large city has more population when counted in AP or UN votes.

We have different views

1. Yeah, but double the buildings. Which also means more national and limited buildings.
2. RFC is plenty of bonuses for cities to grow, except some rare areas. So, large in the term of populous city doesn't necessarily mean large in the term of worked tiles. Actually, like I said, RFC allows you to have large cities with less worked tiles, which allows more specialists. 2 Cities generating specialists are faster than one.
3. True, but you can support less of them.
4. same as 2. Also, according to this, you should build Plymouth because even with its "mere" many ocean tiles, it would give you many more votes.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

1. Yeah, and double the maintenance early on. If you're playing conquest, I would rather have another big city somewhere than another small city cramping my capital.
2. You're right in early game, having 2 smaller cities can generate more great people. But late game when you have 2 small cities you will not get enough points for another one, as opposed to more specialists concentrated in a large city.
3. Who cares about military support when you can generate wealth to support 100% science? I had built 125 tanks and countless supporting troops in my last emperor French conquest game.
4. Yes, but if you're going to have enough votes anyway if you play a domination/conquest game and you're not going for an early diplomatic win.

I think blizzrd, kbk and I have different aims when we play domination/conquest games: we want the most efficient use of the number of cities without damaging our stability or science rate, and large cities are the answer. If there were no penalties for having more cities I would build lots and lots of them anywhere I find space, and I won't care about small cities.

 

[onedreamer]

don't know, I guess I'm not convinced because words as "lots" and "small" are too subjective. What do you think of setting a goal ? I must say, I don't like domination goals (I get bored), but I'm interested in confronting these different strategies. Can you name a domination goal that you'd achieve with no more than X cities ?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, domination and conquest really have different aims. You want to get as many cities as needed to get the land with domination, whereas you're actually DISCOURAGED from founding more cities in conquest because later on you'll have a big hit on you stability the more cities you have. For example, my current emperor conquest game I have a grand total of 8 cities (Frankfurt, Utrecht, Copenhagen, Reval, Faustindoff, Warschau, Zagreb, Oaxaca) and yet I have the 2nd largest empire and 1st in population (my European cities are averaging 16 in 1470). I could have founded 2 more cities in Germany if I used all the spaces there, and right now there's actually some resources (like the fish and the pig near Reval) that are unused, simply because I don't want another city. The area north of the Black Sea actually can support another good city (Russia didn't build Rostov so there plenty of space there) but I did not go there since I am anticipating 4-5 more cities in North America. If I were going for domination, yes, I would found Rostov.

It's just like you were going for 3 Italian cities for going after the Roman UHV while I just stick with Rome (or Canusium) and Mediolanum for conquest.

Even before we talk about conquest and domination, I like representation and bureaucracy for good science, and more than 6 cities will incur a hit on your stability, which is another reason not to build more cities if you can afford not to, especially in emperor.

 

[onedreamer]

uhm... odd, if it's conquest then why limiting your cities in your spawn area ? Actually you only need those, and they don't need to be large. You'll start faster and the conquest will be easier. Btw, it's 4 italian cities for the UHV

 

[AnotherPacifist]

uhm... odd, if it's conquest then why limiting your cities in your spawn area ? Actually you only need those, and they don't need to be large. You'll start faster and the conquest will be easier. Btw, it's 4 italian cities for the UHV

No, the 4 italian cities are NOT part of the UHV. And I'm not limiting cities to my spawn area (I typically grab as much land as possible in Poland and Bulgaria).

 

[onedreamer]

you mixed up my comment, I was referring to the conquest victory and the last comment was just a correction because you mentioned of my roman strategy with 3 cities in Italy.

 

[blizzrd]

Rennes is in Brittany, it can't be there It's northwest from Bordeaux.

Yup. I was meaning Rouen, 1 NW of Paris.

 

[onedreamer]

aha, I have seen French AI actually found the capital there when Paris had been previously razed.

 

[Civ Person]

has any one played as the vikings. a guide would be helpful. should i play historicaly. if thats the case then i am playing wrong. i destroyed england and has colonized it, Mali is my vaslle (excuse my spelling), i razed roma, took alexandria and constaniople, and pretty much destroyed eastern Europe. i am very stable and is about to colonize new york`s area. Its 1190.

 

[blizzrd]

There is a guide on the wiki, but currently RFC is undergoing some updates which may mean that the guide is out of date.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Probably covered already, but for Roman games I've always thought it would be far better to completely forget about Western Europe and basically just go create the Eastern Roman Empire by conquering Greece, Egypt, Carthage and Asia Minor. Western Europe doesn't seem like it's worth all the trouble (obviously this is for non-UHV games) and esp. since France and Spain have far fewer chokepoints like Italy and Greece do, so tougher to defend against barbs. Considering the Euros will take those cities anyway I've always this strategy seemed optimal as acquiring a lot of prime real estate for Rome without worrying about losing anything in the near-future and then being able to build up your forces to defeat your new rivals.

Granted this is ahistorical it seems to put Rome in a far better position to dominate Europe in the long run.

Thoughts?

 

[blizzrd]

Western Europe + Great Wall = no barbarian problems. Eastern Europe crosses so many continent lines that it is very much harder to defend against barbs even with the Great Wall. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Virdrago]

Probably covered already, but for Roman games I've always thought it would be far better to completely forget about Western Europe and basically just go create the Eastern Roman Empire by conquering Greece, Egypt, Carthage and Asia Minor. Western Europe doesn't seem like it's worth all the trouble (obviously this is for non-UHV games) and esp. since France and Spain have far fewer chokepoints like Italy and Greece do, so tougher to defend against barbs. Considering the Euros will take those cities anyway I've always this strategy seemed optimal as acquiring a lot of prime real estate for Rome without worrying about losing anything in the near-future and then being able to build up your forces to defeat your new rivals.

Granted this is ahistorical it seems to put Rome in a far better position to dominate Europe in the long run.

Thoughts?

Considering the context, yes, this is technically historical, since the East did last another 1000 years.

Of course, then you later lose all those Turkish cities...

 

[Verily]

Considering the context, yes, this is technically historical, since the East did last another 1000 years.

Of course, then you later lose all those Turkish cities...

The new continent lines for Constantinople are actually a huge blessing in that regard. Since Constantinople is now in Asia, its cultural influence can cover Anatolia without founding cities there--meaning that you can crowd out the Turks without founding any cities that will flip (and razing Gordion, Hattusas, Baku, etc., although the AI usually does that for you). And then just destroy them a few turns after they spawn.