Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Tecibbar, Aug 22, 2009.
I agree. As long as you can get 2 more junk cities and whip theatres in them for the Globe.
land for 6 cities is enough, knowledge is much more important.
but, if there's no land for 6 cities, I'll whip&chop all for war.
eh until you have 6 cities ?
you dont need 6 good cities . I won many games on Imm when I only have 4 decent cities (which 1 of them is my capital) and 2 filler city. So you only need 3 more good city which is not too hard unless the land around you seriosly bad.
and 6 cities style + wonder spam in the capital is insanely strong if you can pull it off (especially with HC, Ramses , A Ceasar)
ｌａｎｄ　ｆｏｒ　６，　ｎｏｔ　６　ｅｘｉｓｔｉｎｇ　ｏｎｅｓ．
ａｔ　ｂｅｇｉｎｎｉｎｇ　２　ｃｉｔｉｅｓ　ａｒｅ　ｅｎｏｕｇｈ，ｉｆ　ｙｏｕ　ｃａｎ　ｄｏ　ｅｎｏｕｇｈ　ｂｌｏｃｋ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｉｔ．
Ｉ　ｃｈｏｏｓｅ　Ｐｅｒｉｃａｌ，ｌｉｂａｒｙ＋ａｃａｄａｍｙ　ａｔ　ａｒｏｕｎｄ　１７００ＢＣ　ｉｆ　ｂｕｉｌｄ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｏｎｅ　ｃｉｔｙ．
i guess you play settler lvl sir ?
low number of cities doesnt mean you forgo rex at the beginning.
i even build GW and Stoneheage at the begining and still have 4 cities in 1700 BC
Give me land any day. As long as you have enough land that you can outtech before AI wins by space, you're golden.
Granted, you can also go with ~6 cities and tech to rifles and draft like crazy and then expand and that can also work great.
Both can work well and, like all things civ, it depends on your settings, map, neighbours, etc. I wouldn't attack Sitting Bull or Julius early if I can help it--preferring instead to attack them after they fall behind in tech. So, in that case I would stay small and go for rifles. But, if I'm playing as a REXing civ and have lots of, especially good, land to REX my way into--or, if I have rushable neighbours--then I am going for the land every time.
Check out the thread "First Shot at Deity 2." I posted a game up there where I focused on technology rather than land and only had 4 cities by 300 BC or something like that. If I had REXed out to, say, 8 cities, I would be punting the game right now due to lack of technology.
I do see the merits of having lots of land, on the basis that it's good land and that you don't crash the economy.
Depends on what kind of land. If you can get a few solid production sites and a few good science cities you don't need to go rushing to make that awesome 15 flatland plains with 1 sheep site.
If you start on bad lands though, you need settlers to claim good ones. If you start with good land you can tech up and crush your neighbors with a larger and/or more advanced military when the time is right.
I'll take the land, as long as I can tech/trade/Oracle Code of Laws and Currency in a reasonable amount of time. Research Pottery early and whip granaries. Cottage spam. Be sure to build/whip enough workers to avoid working tiles without resources/cottages. With knowledge of Currency, build wealth in cities that already have granaries and courthouses. Building wealth will allow you to run a high research rate while teching to Bureaucracy.
If the player has all the techs in the game, but no land, the game ends a loss. If the player gets the domination land area (plus pop), with very backward techs, the game finishes a win. I'd say land is more powerful. It's the chicken to techs being the eggs.
There are some obvious limitations, but land is usually best, especially if that land has some good resources.
Knowledge is the most important thing in the late game, but you need the land up front to support that
eh Culture, Diplo or space win . Just need a super wonder spam city
and how you have domination land area ? warring non stop ? What do you choose ? Fight with Rifles / Cavalry vs Longbow or fight Axes/Sword/Cat vs Longbow/ Achers/Axes behind wall,suffer heavy casualties and still have to hope the odd turn to your favour? And in other continent Mansa have 10 gold mines and teching Computers ?
And how do you do this without any land?
Since you didn't seem to have picked up, my post discussed the extremes of no land vs. no tech. Looking at the extremes of a situation often provides insights into the balance of things in the middle ground. Obviously, one city challenges are doable and have been done. But there must be a reason why the most advanced players rush to block off enough land in the early game in most games instead of trying to eke out few more beakers pt. On balance, land is the more valuable resource. Higher scarcity value, less exchangeable, appreciates in value over time. Tech gaps can be overcome quickly then on.
your argument is pretty ridiculous. You play Civ game without tech lolz ? why don't go play Totalwar then
good luck have a Dom victory with just warriors haha (not quecha )
I don't see anyone around asking you for game recommendations
Hey, if you don't get it. C'est la vie and all that!
Without knowledge, your ability to acquire land will eventually stagnate as your opponents have superior tech and your outdated army can't make any progress. However, if you have a larger empire, with better quality land than your opponents, over time you will be able to outtech and crush them. If you have a smaller empire, with worse land, your ability to outtech them could be difficult (not necessarily impossible).
The question for me is not which is more powerful per se, but rather when to go for one or the other. Stay small and tech early (e.g., early bureau capital or early GL/NE)? Or rush and recover?
Which one is more powerful depends on the map, your neighbours, your leader, and your game settings (e.g., difficulty level).
OP asked about earlier game, so I'll have to say land >>> knowledge. Early game military techs are pretty spread out. If you have a decent defense force, you're not going to have to worry about losing cities. By the time an enemy AI has the next generation of units (macemen/xbows), your economy should be recovered (alpha/currency/CoL/monarchy) and likely that you can trade for machinery or civil service. With more land, more cottages to work, more resources, more production, more courthouses (therefore more espionage), and more difficult for an enemy AI to actually succeed in defeating you to a paralyzing point.
On Prince and below, knowledge = land since you'll be at a tech (including military tech) advantage pretty early and therefore get more land easily.
This is the superior answer, though:
After all, if only 6-7 cities have good land and the other 5 are desert/tundra/resourceless/foodless/riverless, then you're just paying maintenance on nonsense. For starts with tons of river space and a FIN leader, you will be the tech superior very quickly so a smaller empire with surging research to start is better. Then, your catapults/xbows/macemen can crush AI archers/axes/swords. Now knowledge=power=land=power! NICE
Separate names with a comma.