I've been reading through the topic and I get the feeling that this Wacken-guy plays Civ extremely narrowly. Probably always plays pangaea, on way too easy difficulty levels for his skill, on small maps. When I play Civ I want an epic experience, so I play large maps, on high enough difficulties to make it impossible to win early, on continental maps. Nothing beats the sense of adventure when you first reach another continent! Warmongering constantly is boring. And dissing all buildings like that... tsk tsk. Every time I build a new city early in the game - and that's many times - I build a Temple of maybe Library as early as possible. By medieval Age, most of my cities that aren't corrupted badly have all available buildings unless they're too small to gain benefit from them. I don't neglect wonders like many do - The Temple of Artemis for example is a great help for cultural victories and score, and I love Smith's for the free maintenance of all those buildings. And I always try to get as far as possible before winning/losing. If I don't get through most of the Modern Times, I feel I've wasted the game. No fun to end early before all the cool stuff gets available.
Useless vs. Must-Have City Improvements
- Thread starter chickensaver
- Start date
Kool Keith
Warlord
This post is funny on a number of levels.
I hate to be the one to defend Wacken but everything he says is true.
Of course it's only true if you want to win... and win as quickly as possible.
If you want to play and maybe win... but play, then there are many strategies.
Develop what feels right for you as you progress up the levels.
It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, do what you enjoy.
Of course it's only true if you want to win... and win as quickly as possible.
If you want to play and maybe win... but play, then there are many strategies.
Develop what feels right for you as you progress up the levels.
It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, do what you enjoy.
Kool Keith
Warlord
It's amazing how many people on these boards think they are some kind of expert, or that they play the game the right way (TM Larry Brown) and everyone else plays wrong. The best is when someone starts a thread asking for advice, and then tells the people who take their time to write out some answers that they are wrong.
Which city improvements do you usually build?/Not build?
(consider an average city)
I've always been caught in paying too much in maintenance.
Back to the origin. My reply is that there is no average city in my games.
In my core cities for domination/conquest/space victories I usually only build barracks, marketplaces, libraries, universities, aqueducts (if needed), factories and power plants. The only wonders I would build are TOE to get to Hoovers.
Every third game or so I try for a cultural win so I can build all the things I usually don't. Then I don't build marketplaces as the people are just as happy as clams without them anyways. But I get to build all the temples, caths, colosseums, and all the wonders without feeling guilty. I mean there in the game why not build them once in a while.
Of course I'll build a grainary for a settler/worker pump also.
