|
Generally shoot for 4 cities and a Tradition start in most cases. Sometimes circumstances (like UAs, available luxuries, available land space or rather the lack thereof) may cause you to shoot for 3 or 5, that's fine too. Though if you go for more than 4 cities, remember that you won't get the free Monument + Aqueduct from Tradition in the fifth (or later). There's a lot of different things that go into where your cities should be placed, but that's a pretty big can of worms to get into. Don't feel obligated to make sure your cities are completely 100% non-overlapping in their 3-tile borders. But unless you have good reason, don't jam them right on top of each other as close as possible for maximum overlap either. Try to make them be decently non-overlapping, but have each of them be a good city site (with heavier priority on the "is this good now or soon" than the "will this be good in a very long time once its borders expand a lot" concern).
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Blocking settlers, keeping other civs from seeing your cities so they can target it for spying, and claiming Strategic and Luxury resources. And blocking straits.  Philosopher King posted:And what is the best way to go about winning if I'm going for space race victory? Am I completely screwed if someone else is going for domination? The key to science is realizing that population equals more science, so go for growth. Remember that jungles tiles produce science as soon as you have a university built in that city, plus with a certain Rationalism policy Trading Posts also produce science, which is especially good since they don't remove the jungle. A city in the jungle might not be producing much at first but later on it will be generating a lot science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Man do I hate Alexander. I'm constructing my space ship over here in 1920 AD after enjoying that magnificent Babylonian Great Scientist parade and I'm pretty sure that jerk is going to get elected World Leader before I can finish it. And even though I have a boatload of money and spies all over the place I don't seem to be able to wrest control of too many city-states away from him. Plus, someone embargoed city-states like 200 turns ago, so I can't fulfill any of those beautiful trade route easy influence quests. This is going to be frustrating to play out, but it ain't over till it's over I guess. Any tips for juggling the whole "chase your chosen win condition while also shutting out the inevitable diplomatic leader" challenge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
So should I put my worker guys on auto improve? Will they automatically build roads to my other cities? Can then end up screwing me over if left unattended? Also for multiplayer, is there any way that my friend and I can both start off on different teams but achieve an allied victory?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
If you want to take your civ game to the next level, don't use automated workers. They'll do okay, build roads and whatnot, but it's best for you to be in total control and it's not as daunting as it seems at first. Automated workers only start to cause real problems when you have new/distant cities and they get all confused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Man do I hate Alexander. I'm constructing my space ship over here in 1920 AD after enjoying that magnificent Babylonian Great Scientist parade and I'm pretty sure that jerk is going to get elected World Leader before I can finish it. And even though I have a boatload of money and spies all over the place I don't seem to be able to wrest control of too many city-states away from him. Plus, someone embargoed city-states like 200 turns ago, so I can't fulfill any of those beautiful trade route easy influence quests. Buy up as many city-states as you can, preferably simultaneously. Go for whichever ones require the least influence to become their new ally (there's something you can hover over for that to show up in a tooltip, in the diplomacy list). As your gold rolls in, keep buying up (or re-buying) city-states. Alexander's persistent but you can probably outspend him. Meanwhile, do whatever you can to increase your gold income (shift trade routes to gold - with people other than Alexander - and build a bunch of trading posts). If necessary, once you have enough that he can't self-declare himself a diplomatic winner, declare war on him to lock him out of being able to pay off your city-state allies. Philosopher King posted:So should I put my worker guys on auto improve? Will they automatically build roads to my other cities? Can then end up screwing me over if left unattended? Auto-improve workers are... okay, but sometimes pretty dumb. I generally do it later in the game when I've already manually built any improvements I care about, and don't care about micro-managing after that. They do automatically build roads, but don't tend to build them very intelligently. And they absolutely loving love turning roads into railroads once you discover railroads. They will drop goddamn everything to railroad your entire empire. For multiplayer, only one team can be victorious. You can have an unofficial allied victory where you both consider yourselves to have won if either of you wins, but if you want to technically both be winners, you have to both be on the same team.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Man do I hate Alexander. I'm constructing my space ship over here in 1920 AD after enjoying that magnificent Babylonian Great Scientist parade and I'm pretty sure that jerk is going to get elected World Leader before I can finish it. And even though I have a boatload of money and spies all over the place I don't seem to be able to wrest control of too many city-states away from him. Plus, someone embargoed city-states like 200 turns ago, so I can't fulfill any of those beautiful trade route easy influence quests. 2) You should've done this in 4000BC but better late than never I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Andorra posted:And blocking straits. Also, observatories may not seem like it, but they are loving huge for science as well. I just completed a king level Korea with 3 of my 4 cities next to mountains and I had the science victory before 1900. Speaking of test runs... I'm doing one now as Theodora going Piety, Tradition, and Aesthetics for a culture victory. It's only 1360 and the two civs I have contact with since I just discovered astronomy are at 64% and 49% influence because I chose 3 faith purchase buildings and the reformation belief that gives you 2 tourism per faith purchased building.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Aha, I hadn't considered declaring war on Alexander after buying off a few of his city-states. We're on separate continents and I have a huge tech lead on him, plus everyone hates him. That's a great idea, thanks.Philosopher King posted:So should I put my worker guys on auto improve? Will they automatically build roads to my other cities? Can then end up screwing me over if left unattended? I generally don't like to automate anything, except maybe I'll put my last caravel on automate once I'm bored of poking around. Since I generally only have one worker per city or so, it's pretty easy to make sure they're all doing something legitimately useful at any given time, or I just put them to sleep once they've improved every tile I care about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
What goes into the game deciding what an ideal location to found a city is and where do I want to ignore its advice? It likes coasts, rivers, strategic resources, food and production. But it never tells me to found a city on top of one. I only found out you could do that and not destroy it in this thread. That is the only circumstance I second guess the recommended starting location icon. Or when I really want one and it doesn't recommend a city anywhere on this continent and I have to wing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:What goes into the game deciding what an ideal location to found a city is and where do I want to ignore its advice? It likes coasts, rivers, strategic resources, food and production. But it never tells me to found a city on top of one. I only found out you could do that and not destroy it in this thread. That is the only circumstance I second guess the recommended starting location icon. Or when I really want one and it doesn't recommend a city anywhere on this continent and I have to wing it. Basically, have a plan for every city that you start up and count hexes around it. Everything 3 steps away from it will eventually be yours to work. Say you want a high production city for military development, make sure you are planting it near a decent amount of hills, as well as hamemr heavy resources like horses, iron and what have you. Outside of that; coastal cities are great, even better if you can get them next to a river. If you can avoid settling on resources, do so, you'll get the resource but not the bonuses from the building that extracts them. Natural wonders are sometimes not worth it if they conflict with your specific city plan too much, but always consider adapting your plan to your environment. Finally, grabbing new luxury resources with your first few cities is a much. They'll offset the happiness penalty and even give you some to trade to other civs for a steady flow of income. One new luxury will keep you even in happiness give or take, grabbing two new luxuries will result in a happiness surplus and more golden ages, or gold if you trade it away. The suggestions by the game are usually okay, but just like using automated workers and citizen management, you'll eventually learn how to do it much better yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
So what is the absolute fastest a person can tech up to space race? Has anyone every achieved this pre-1500? When I start out should I go for a strat on achieving a single type of victory, or is it something you decide later on as the game progresses? My experience with Civ games goes out to 3 or 4 when domination was still pretty much the only way to play. I have no idea how to really safely persue any of these other goals.Vil posted:For multiplayer, only one team can be victorious. You can have an unofficial allied victory where you both consider yourselves to have won if either of you wins, but if you want to technically both be winners, you have to both be on the same team. So is there any advantage or disadvantage to going in as a team rather than as allied opponents and vice versa? I guess you can get the tech trade thing between allied empires. Will we tech faster instead as one team? I do know that our relations with city states were strained as we attacked a few of them each game before getting the ire of all of them before we knew any better. At least as allied opponents they won't hate all of us. Philosopher King fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Philosopher King posted:So what is the absolute fastest a person can tech up to space race? Has anyone every achieved this pre-1500? There's this that is a turn 190 (1300 AD) Science Victory as Babylon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqG9CEj3Lj0 The video quality is kinda poo poo, though, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Philosopher King posted:So what is the absolute fastest a person can tech up to space race? Has anyone every achieved this pre-1500? When I start out should I go for a strat on achieving a single type of victory, or is it something you decide later on as the game progresses? My experience with Civ games goes out to 3 or 4 when domination was still pretty much the only way to play. I have no idea how to really safely persue any of these other goals. Like all strategy game, turn based, real time or grand, this game benefits greatly from coming in with a strong plan (strategy) from turn 1. In the lower difficulties it doesn't really matter if you get ADD because by the time you're nearly done winning all victory conditions at once, the 2nd best civilization will be just figuring out that maybe making GBS threads in the drinking water isn't a great idea. To do anything in higher difficulties though, you'll need a plan (and the highest to execute it while gaming the AI to its breaking point) pick a Civ that has a bonus that seems fit for a certain victory, start up a game and start working towards it. Make sure every choice you make is made for the purpose of getting you one step closer to that victory. You'll learn things like how large of a standing army you need so other civs dont attack you while you're working towards a non-domination based victory. How to specialize cities, production and the proper route to go up the tech tree. You will also lose, a lot, but as long as you recognize what caused the loss and you work that knowledge into your next game, you will do better til you win, then you move up another difficulty. Have a plan, be decisive, and know when to be flexible in its execution to still win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Philosopher King posted:I do know that our relations with city states were strained as we attacked a few of them each game before getting the ire of all of them before we knew any better. At least as allied opponents they won't hate all of us. Either be a warmongering menace to the world who gives zero shits about diplomacy anyways, or don't do anything against city-states more severe than stealing one or maybe two workers early on. Preferably before many/any other civs have met the city-state in question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Vil posted:Either be a warmongering menace to the world who gives zero shits about diplomacy anyways, or don't do anything against city-states more severe than stealing one or maybe two workers early on. Preferably before many/any other civs have met the city-state in question. Speaking of doing things to city-states, do AIs get pissed off if you buy up one of their city-state allies as Venice? I haven't done a Venice game yet, but it seems like a pretty nice source of amusement, just outright buying city-states as they ally with people you dislike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Aside for specific wonders, do you guys tend to build all buildings? For example if I don't care about Religion, should I even bother with a Shrine or a Temple? Or am I missing out on some late game synergy's or bonuses. I am trying to find the right balance between concentrating on specific aspects (science, gold production, culture, faith, building an army, etc.). I tend to pick two or three but by mid to late game I find myself all over the place building everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Andorra posted:The key to science is realizing that population equals more science, so go for growth. Remember that jungles tiles produce science as soon as you have a university built in that city, plus with a certain Rationalism policy Trading Posts also produce science, which is especially good since they don't remove the jungle. A city in the jungle might not be producing much at first but later on it will be generating a lot science. This is the truth. I just won a game as America (don't laugh, it was a self-imposed challenge!) and Washington was right in the middle of a huge jungle. Life sucked a bit starting out but by the endgame I had completely eclipsed everyone else's science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Will my auto-workers remove jungle automatically?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Philosopher King posted:Will my auto-workers remove jungle automatically? They can but there is an option that you can enable that prevents them from clearing forest and jungles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Speaking of doing things to city-states, do AIs get pissed off if you buy up one of their city-state allies as Venice? I haven't done a Venice game yet, but it seems like a pretty nice source of amusement, just outright buying city-states as they ally with people you dislike. They do not mind if you use Venice's or Austria's respective "this city-state is mine now" ability. As far as they (and the game) are concerned, that city-state has simply ceased to exist as a city-state, and that civ now has one more city. Granted, they might object if, say, the city-state in question is right on their borders and OH NO YOU DI'N'T JUST BUTT UP AGAINST MY BORDERS, but nothing more than they usually would for that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Speaking of doing things to city-states, do AIs get pissed off if you buy up one of their city-state allies as Venice? I haven't done a Venice game yet, but it seems like a pretty nice source of amusement, just outright buying city-states as they ally with people you dislike. You'd expect them to, but nope. Nobody cares. Unlike the AI, you should care and whoop Enrico the minute you see him. Krinkle posted:What goes into the game deciding what an ideal location to found a city is and where do I want to ignore its advice? It likes coasts, rivers, strategic resources, food and production. But it never tells me to found a city on top of one. I only found out you could do that and not destroy it in this thread. That is the only circumstance I second guess the recommended starting location icon. Or when I really want one and it doesn't recommend a city anywhere on this continent and I have to wing it. Hills are magical places full of love, defensive power and hammers (I don't know whether the game tells you, but cities founded on hills get +1 production yield from their own tile compared to cities founded on flat lands). Coasts are great for better trade routes. Anything that can give a city a food/production kickstart (salt, pasture stuff, stone especially in grasslands, deer and wheat, fish if you can buy a lighthouse) is excellent. Gold resources aren't so good unless it's a hill with silver/copper/gold and you're putting down the city on top of it. Rivers used to be godlike but now they're just a nice bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Vil posted:Granted, they might object if, say, the city-state in question is right on their borders and OH NO YOU DI'N'T JUST BUTT UP AGAINST MY BORDERS, but nothing more than they usually would for that situation. Heavy neutrino posted:Hills are magical places full of love, defensive power and hammers (I don't know whether the game tells you, but cities founded on hills get +1 production yield from their own tile compared to cities founded on flat lands). Coasts are great for better trade routes. Gold resources aren't so good unless it's a hill with silver/copper/gold and you're putting down the city on top of it. Rivers used to be godlike but now they're just a nice bonus. 2) Coasts are... ehh. My problem with them is that once you settle one, unless they're in a cove or have a peninsula jutting out, you're sacrificing more or less half your city's potential tiles. They're poo poo-traps that badly need their +1gpt back. 3) Gold Resources blow (except Citrus, Citrus is a god among luxury resources). Mine resources on hills blow. What's good is no-hill mining resources: all the food, all the gold, still produces a poo poo-ton of hammers, all for the low, low tradeoff price of the two tiny little hammers Hills naturally give you  I think CiV kind of needs to give a buff to the other resources, honestly. Citrus, Salt, and Crabs are so good that the vanilla resources are boring and ugly in comparison. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:What goes into the game deciding what an ideal location to found a city is and where do I want to ignore its advice? It likes coasts, rivers, strategic resources, food and production. But it never tells me to found a city on top of one. I only found out you could do that and not destroy it in this thread. That is the only circumstance I second guess the recommended starting location icon. Or when I really want one and it doesn't recommend a city anywhere on this continent and I have to wing it. Your city square is always brought to 2 food if it's less than that. It'll claim resources under it with the right tech, but it won't get proper yield improvements ala Farm or Mine. Then again, effectively turning a Gems Hill Square into 2/2/4 or whatever it really is can be seen as powerful in itself. Cities take a defence boost from hills same as units do. Bloodly fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
By rivers used to be godlike but now they're not, do you mean civ IV to V? Or was there a patch that changed rivers? You can get water wheels on rivers. Those are pretty snazzy? All I remember is a Civ IV walkthrough where the guy said "I'm founding on a river because now I'll have science." I don't remember anything else but that rivers give you science, in civ IV, and I assumed they'd be important here also.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:1) Hills are a short term/long play tradeoff. You can settle one now and dramatically reduce your very early to-build turns, or you can pass and settle off one and get a dramatic reduction to your lategame to-build turns. It's all up to you, but I know I like super long games so hills are a no-go for me. Out of curiosity, what makes hills less desirable in the long term? This is all making me seriously reconsider my love for coastal hill starts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Out of curiosity, what makes hills less desirable in the long term? This is all making me seriously reconsider my love for coastal hill starts. I'd guess Windmills is what he's referring to? Unless you get significantly more pop/time with flatland cities, which I haven't particularly noticed. The Golden Rule of Civ is basically 'bonuses now are better than bonuses later' so I prefer hills, all else being equal. Coasts really aren't bad as sea tiles are at least food-neutral with Lighthouses, although I don't find them very worthwhile without at least a couple resources. Atolls and fish are extremely my poo poo. A point here, which also goes back to the city distance/hex overlap question earlier, is that you're pretty unlikely to be working all your city's tiles in lieu of specialists anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:By rivers used to be godlike but now they're not, do you mean civ IV to V? Or was there a patch that changed rivers? You can get water wheels on rivers. Those are pretty snazzy? All I remember is a Civ IV walkthrough where the guy said "I'm founding on a river because now I'll have science." I don't remember anything else but that rivers give you science, in civ IV, and I assumed they'd be important here also. I think he's referring to how in Vanilla and G&K, the tiles along rivers and coasts yield gold as well as whatever the normal tile yields, but that went away with BNW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Antares posted:I'd guess Windmills is what he's referring to? Unless you get significantly more pop/time with flatland cities, which I haven't particularly noticed. The Golden Rule of Civ is basically 'bonuses now are better than bonuses later' so I prefer hills, all else being equal. I also trend towards Marathon, so do keep that in mind when I see a marginal short-term gain as being considerably less lucrative than a long-term one that pays off hugely over the next four hundred turns. As for Coasts, you know, I'd be okay with them if they had more Atolls. With all the coastal improvements, they're a pretty good tile. Unfortunately, they pretty much only spawn in island chains and never near continents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:By rivers used to be godlike but now they're not, do you mean civ IV to V? Or was there a patch that changed rivers? You can get water wheels on rivers. Those are pretty snazzy? All I remember is a Civ IV walkthrough where the guy said "I'm founding on a river because now I'll have science." I don't remember anything else but that rivers give you science, in civ IV, and I assumed they'd be important here also. It was a change in the update to Brave New World, I believe. It's been a mainstay of Civ that river tiles give you commerce, but in BNW I believe they changed it so that cities on a river have better trade routes. I think it's just land trade routes, but it might count sea routes too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I also trend towards Marathon, so do keep that in mind when I see a marginal short-term gain as being considerably less lucrative than a long-term one that pays off hugely over the next four hundred turns. Jeez, I don't think I'd have the patience to get through the early game on Marathon. How long does it take to make your first Scout or Monument on that? To be honest I've never given it a try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Jeez, I don't think I'd have the patience to get through the early game on Marathon. How long does it take to make your first Scout or Monument on that? To be honest I've never given it a try. 13 on Hills and with one +1 Hammer tile, 15 on Hills with a +0 Hammer tile/no Hill +1 Hammer tile, 17 with no Hammers. It depreciates from the third hammer, though; it only goes to 12 turns and you see even less reduction from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:13 on Hills and with one +1 Hammer tile, 15 on Hills with a +0 Hammer tile/no Hill +1 Hammer tile, 17 with no Hammers. It depreciates from the third hammer, though; it only goes to 12 turns and you see even less reduction from there. Oh, that's not so bad. It definitely puts into perspective the huge advantage that stealing an early Worker can be, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Coastal cities are the best because role playing as a pirate nation under the dreaded Pirate Empress Elizabeth and destroying everyone with a fleet of 20 ships of the line is the most fun I have with this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
River tiles used to provide 1 Gold, but either a patch or one of the expansions nerfed it IIRC. edit: wow, don't wait to post
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Oh, they do that if you have a city on a continent they can't even reach yet. I hate their border detection AI, it's broken as poo poo. The ability to build a windmill in the lategame should never, ever, factor into your decision on whether or not to build on a hill. Windmills are the worse building in the game. I'm not kidding, alot of Civ5 buildings are weak and situational, but windmills take the cake. Not only are they expensive and result in a poor return on investment, but they only return on other buildings. Not units. Settling on a hill provides completely free hammers, no need to work a hammer tile in lieu of a food tile, no need to grow another citizen, it starts paying immediately. Whether or not you steal a worker or not is completely irrelevant, because you're always building something, and a free hammer is going to save you many many turns on all items in your queue throughout the game. If anything, it would be stronger on Marathon, as a free hammer could be the difference between building a unit in 17 turns versus 20 turns, giving you 3 extra turns to march your unit forward and 3 extra attacks. And techwise, it's also irrelevant, because unlike unit movement, tech and production scales properly with gamespeed. So you'll be spending the same proportion of the game teching from the ancient era to the point where windmills are unlocked. I do agree that alot of the resources are unbalanced, some resources are so much better than others. Citrus and Salt are the prime examples. Pasture resources are also fairly good, as those tiles receive alot of buffs throughout the game. Gold, silver and gems are also decent, because you always want to be working some zero food hill tiles throughout the game, and if you are, you may as well get some gold out of it. Camps are mediocre, but at least you can buff most of these tiles (except ivory, they are terrible except for the ability to build a circus). On the other hand, plantation resources are terrible, improving them provides no more than +1g, and out of everything you could harvest in the game, a single unit of gold has very little value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Well, my first game on King has been thoroughly embarrassing. I'm still one tech away from being able to finish my spaceship and Greece needs one more vote to become World Leader in 5 turns, and seemingly infinite money to buy back city-states the moment I get them to ally with me. I've been building nukes so that I could maybe just grab their capital and call it a day but I don't think I can get them across the sea in time. I tried to follow some of the suggestions I've gotten here, to ally with enough city-states to deny him the 41 votes he needs and then declare war, but I just can't seem to stay allied to enough city-states at the same time to pull that off. Somehow I thought being able to build a spaceship by turn 390 or so would be a good game but apparently not!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Well, my first game on King has been thoroughly embarrassing. I'm still one tech away from being able to finish my spaceship and Greece needs one more vote to become World Leader in 5 turns, and seemingly infinite money to buy back city-states the moment I get them to ally with me. I've been building nukes so that I could maybe just grab their capital and call it a day but I don't think I can get them across the sea in time. I tried to follow some of the suggestions I've gotten here, to ally with enough city-states to deny him the 41 votes he needs and then declare war, but I just can't seem to stay allied to enough city-states at the same time to pull that off. Buy enough city states to ally so he cannot win. Then, declare war so he cannot buy them back. Or crush him 2000 years ago with comp bows and swordsmen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Sexual Aluminum posted:Buy enough city states to ally so he cannot win. Then, declare war so he cannot buy them back. I tried to do that first method and it never worked out. By the time it became clear what a threat he was, I couldn't afford to buy more than one or two city-state allies per turn, and he'd buy them back right away. All five of my spies are rigging elections, too, and they're barely making a dent. The guy's untouchable. And yeah, I should've taken him out the moment I met him. That's a lesson learned. I figured since we weren't on the same continent it wouldn't be worth the trouble, but clearly I was very, very wrong. In my most recent save I have some nuclear missiles en route to Athens and some XCOM troops to back them up, and maybe that'll be enough for me to take his capital, but I've only got about 18 turns to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
About those policies that give you free buildings in your first four cities. If you only have 2-3 cities and pop that policy, do you automatically get that culture building once you found your 3rd-4th city as well, or is that bonus lost? I was trying a culture game the other night and I could swear I popped the "free monument" policy with only 2 cities but when I settled my 3rd-4th, I didn't get the free monument. Am I misremembering or do you already need 4 cities before popping that policy for max benefit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:35
|
|
