Worst holy city location EVER!

Mrdie

Founder of eRegime
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
677
Playing the Europa Empires mod, and I captured a barbarian city. I didn't have the option to raze it, next turn...oh damn...

(Look at map)
 

Attachments

  • Holycityow.JPG
    Holycityow.JPG
    225.2 KB · Views: 1,178
RandomInsanity said:
i really do hate the way it chooses what city the religion is founded in.
Yeah. I mean, it should AT LEAST have something that tells it WHAT the city is like. If it's far away from my Capitol, it shouldn't make that city my HC. The city got recaptured by barbarians, and in return was taken by a computer player.
 
karadoc said:
That some pretty big culture for just one turn...
Took about three turns to get the city to actually "start" (As that's what happens when you take over a city)

Then, one turn after it started, BAM, Holy City.
 
Bring a missionary along to spread your state religion in the future. Much less chance it will be the next holy city.
 
I don't think he wanted to keep the city.
He did say, "I didn't have the option to raze it,..."
 
It is not bad, I would farm the plains, build pasture on the sheep, windmill the hills, lumbermill the forests, and get lighthouse and harbour. Then it can be a semi-decent city.
 
Why didn't he have the option to raze the city? I thought all cities could be razed after taking them by force.
 
What's so bad about this city? It looks fine to me. You could end up with the holy city being a city you built off in the middle of desert or ice, just to get a resource there. This city is much much better than that.
 
It is not bad, I would farm the plains, build pasture on the sheep, windmill the hills, lumbermill the forests, and get lighthouse and harbour. Then it can be a semi-decent city.

What's so bad about this city? It looks fine to me. You could end up with the holy city being a city you built off in the middle of desert or ice, just to get a resource there. This city is much much better than that.

I think he's mad because it is so far from his capital
 
Mrdie said:
..And inbetween the two citys is a whole different Civ.

I don't see why this matters. If you didn't want the city at all, why did you attack it? If you do want the city, and you're paying the maintenance cost for it anyway, that only makes sense if you're going to build it up and make it productive, and in that case, it's not a big deal if it's the holy city.
 
I think you got lucky the religion was founded there. This way, both this city and your capital get nice border expansion. I would be overjoyed if this happened to me.
 
DaviddesJ said:
I don't see why this matters. If you didn't want the city at all, why did you attack it?
If thats a Monarch plus game the distance costs would cripple research. That alone is a great reason for not wanting the city.

And there are many reasons for attacking a city and not wanting to keep it. Unit experiance, Pillaged gold, and slowing an opponents expansion being top on the list. But that city was a Barbarian city and so the prevailing reason was probably to limit the appearance of barbarians in the region.
 
From the look of the mini-map, it looks like such a far away city with great culture output will let him claim a huge chunk of the map, i.e. everything to the East of it. Again, like i said, i would be overjoyed.
 
But you might not be so happy if the distance of that city caused your research times to double. It all depends on what difficulty you play.
 
I once had a Holy City founded in a distant city that was weakly defended with a group of barbarians outside it, who attacked it the next turn, captured it, and razed the city. So there was no Islamic holy city, but there were Islamic citites.
 
Back
Top Bottom