Stupid settling (can be closed or deleted)
- Thread starter Cybah
- Start date
please do - what is so stupid? I don't get it
this city gets 3 resources and fresh water and instant trade routes - seems to be quite good...
Whats your point ? That city was not settled. Therefore this is not a good choice to illustrate settling problems.
Personally I dont think it was a bad choice to conquer that city. Looks like it only took a couple of units. Things could have turned out differently and the rest of the Khmer empire could of joined up with it.
Maintance costs are only based on distance to capital so even if there were cities around it, it wont cost more to maintain than if there were nt.
Unless the city is has strong cultural pressure on there's no reason to give it up.
I could see your point if the Khmer had to waste building a settler to get it but they didnt.
Personally I dont think it was a bad choice to conquer that city. Looks like it only took a couple of units. Things could have turned out differently and the rest of the Khmer empire could of joined up with it.
Maintance costs are only based on distance to capital so even if there were cities around it, it wont cost more to maintain than if there were nt.
Unless the city is has strong cultural pressure on there's no reason to give it up.
I could see your point if the Khmer had to waste building a settler to get it but they didnt.
ok lets close this.Look north. That city has another city adjacent to it, just north of it.
It looks like a reasonable conquest, especially given that the AI plays on a relatively fixed economic difficulty level. With the pro-AI handicaps at high levels, building sprawling empires is relatively easy.
It looks like a reasonable conquest, especially given that the AI plays on a relatively fixed economic difficulty level. With the pro-AI handicaps at high levels, building sprawling empires is relatively easy.
Similar threads
