|
If you want to buy a city state for a nearby resource or natural wonder, you should actually wait for it to expand its borders to get that tile before buying. In my experience puppeting a city state slows its border expansion rate to a crawl.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Was it bad of me to end a war before killing everything the other guy had? I razed one city and had him begging every other turn, but would not give me gold or cities. I figured he must have had some units waiting. I didn't want to assault his cap (Zulu) since I was sure winning would cost me most of my army. I agreed for peace. My 2nd city is about 5 hex away from his cap. I kept most of my units there just in case he tried to war again. I sent 1/3 back home incase my cap is hit by another civ. Well the turn after the treaty ended he wanted to war again. Should I have just killed him at the cost of losing more men? I mean if I take his cap. I can roll back a save, not much happened in those 15 turns anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Nearly always you should buy a city state. The new city-state will allow you to set up another trade route to a lucrative foreign city or send food and hammers back to Venice. In most cases this greatly out performs the alternatives. I ask because I'm playing in a multiplayer game with some friends where there are three city states I've found so far. I puppeted the first one to get more trade, the second has borders that touch the first, and the third is ages away from any cities to trade with. Should I still puppet one of those two?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Normal city placement rules still apply. Try to look and see if a CS is one you would settle. You do want to acquire about 4 cities to feed routes to Venice. Remember: you can still conquer cities
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Found a Civ I actually enjoy and wanted to share -- Moriya Shrine (Warning: Anime) The Civ does a couple of neat things: The first is providing mountain tile yield -- Mountains will grant 1 food, production, gold, and faith. 4 tile yield isn't too bad, even with it scattered all over the place. The second half of the UA provides a beaker bonus equal to half your faith. It's UB replaces the temple, and provides +1 faith per 2 worshippers of whatever the majority of religion is in your capital. The UU is a swordsman replacement that gets bonus strength depending on your faith output up to 20 combat strength, which makes them pretty strong. I don't know if the unique promotion passes along though. It's a nice synergy of Faith and Science, along with the ability to settle in mountain ranges for the defensive benefit without losing much. My only current issue is that Race for Religion seems to be bugged in this game and the AI's religion pressure seems to be infinite, putting insane values onto my capital. On another note; what's the prefered route of getting culture for policies? It's painful to have Piety on the same tier as Tradition, even with Reform and Rule. Edit: Another fun bug with Race for Religion TalonDemonKing fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
That doesn't sound OP at all. AND it's an animay? Too good to be true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:That doesn't sound OP at all. AND it's an animay? Too good to be true. Your continued protection against anime is a great comfort to us goons. Anyways, here's another mod called Fortress Borders which causes the fortress improvement to act like a mini citadel. You have to have a person inside it, however, or after 5 turns the land is lost, and anyone who moves into the fort will take the surrounding land. If the enemy takes the fort, the land is automatically lost until you can take it back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
That's a pretty cool idea, but does the AI understand how to use them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Maybe? I doubt it, but Monty was attacking both of these city states this game. It's been a weird game, though -- China has the Shoshone's colors and Babylon has Isabella's colors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
In my Byzantine game, I desperately need a port coastal city so I can explore and later spread my religion. I've felt there are two potential candidate sites: I felt with all the deer and fish this could make up for it being tundra. The natural wonder helping as well but i'm not sure. It is also a bit further than I'd like. The other spot is on this coast:  Anywhere with access to whales really. I'm tempted to get the city at the bottom but I feel the mountain and desert hexes may really ruin any productivity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:The other spot is on this coast: I'd take the spot between the mountain and the whales. Two new luxuries, an observatory and only two desert tiles, one of which has iron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I like the tundra spot, next to the iron/deer/fish. Forests and hills don't receive any penalty for being tundra and you'll have more than enough food surplus to grow with 2 deer + 2 fish (after Civil Service you'll be able to farm that river for a bunch of 2-3 food + production tiles too.) Don't worry about "dead" tiles like bare tundra/sea, very few non-capital cities will ever grow large enough to work all their tiles, and certainly not this one--you're looking at a modestly sized city with high production. The lack of luxuries sucks though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:The lack of luxuries sucks though. I think this is the sticking point, he's at negative happiness already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Does a city tile have to be literally right next to a mountain to build an Observatory? I have a mountain three tiles away from a coast. Can I have the city be on the coast and also get an observatory?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Nope; the city has to be flushed right against the mountain
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:Nope; the city has to be flushed right against the mountain Well poo poo. I'll stick to the coast then given the situation. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
If you are forced to choose between building next to a mountain or building on the coast I say take the coast. The gold bonuses along with being able to build a navy make up for less science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
If the coastal tiles are good (3 resources, depending on UA/Pantheon/If other cities are on the coast), then I'd say go for the ocean. Otherwise its just better to have the mountain tile for the 50% bonus science. You'll probably get way more unworkable tiles with the ocean setup over a mountain setup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:If the coastal tiles are good (3 resources, depending on UA/Pantheon/If other cities are on the coast), then I'd say go for the ocean. Otherwise its just better to have the mountain tile for the 50% bonus science. You'll probably get way more unworkable tiles with the ocean setup over a mountain setup. But then you miss out on those sweet, sweet internal sea trade routes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
There's a nice little mod that lets you build an observatory if the mountain is two tiles away from the city, which I think is pretty reasonable. (Of course, I think just having the mountain within your borders should count, but what do I know?  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Observatories give you most of the power of research labs two eras early and at a cost of less than half the hammers and no maintenance. Getting one should cost you flexibility in city placement. There’s a reason the Inca are a top‐tier OCC civ, and it’s not thanks to the slinger, cheap roads, or faster movement in hills. Fake edit: Don’t forget that natural wonders count as mountains for the purpose of observatories, even Barringer Crater and Lake Victoria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:Anyways, here's another mod called Fortress Borders which causes the fortress improvement to act like a mini citadel. You have to have a person inside it, however, or after 5 turns the land is lost, and anyone who moves into the fort will take the surrounding land. If the enemy takes the fort, the land is automatically lost until you can take it back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
I generally play with some mods on, but mainly stuff like "Cities must be at least 5 tiles apart" or "make sure Krakatoa and Gibraltar will only spawn in usable spots". Plus I love the Tectonic Map Script, it makes really natural looking maps
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Fake edit: Don’t forget that natural wonders count as mountains for the purpose of observatories, even Barringer Crater and Lake Victoria. But then there are some other natural wonders which don't, even though they logically should because they're actually mountains. I think Mt. Sinai is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
When do you do internal trade routes? I never seem to ever do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Doltos posted:When do you do internal trade routes? I never seem to ever do it. - After founding a new city, throw your next trade route at sending it food. By the time that trade route's done, the city's been boosted to a useful enough size to grow on its own. (Skip this if you're skirting happiness closely enough that massive growth in the new city will make you unhappy. Corollary: try not to found new cities when you're that tight on happiness, since they're a lot less useful if you can't grow them.) - Have about 1/4 to 1/2 of your trade routes throwing food at your capital at all times, if you can swing it. This goes double if the capital's coastal (because a. it'll get more food from the routes and b. it'll suck more for food on its own). If your capital sucks but you have some other city good for high pop growth, science, great people, etc. then throw food at that city instead (this is uncommon). - If you really really need production (and can predict you will, soon enough to get the trade routes in place), have a round of throwing production at some city. (Bear in mind that the same source city can't send both food and production to the same target city.) Generally only necessary for getting some wonder which is a cornerstone of your strategy (*) or because you know someone's going to be invading you or you're going to be invading someone and want to churn out a lot of units extra fast. (*) Wonders should never be the cornerstone of your strategy. You may want to try playing Venice. They get double trade routes, so you'll have plenty to spare to try them out. Then when you can appreciate how much that helps the city of Venice, you can consider doing the same thing (maybe to a lesser degree, due to fewer trade routes) with other civs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
I'm playing Venice right now on an emperor game and I didn't even consider internal trade routes. Do you station them in a puppet city and have them send you food/production?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm playing Venice right now on an emperor game and I didn't even consider internal trade routes. Do you station them in a puppet city and have them send you food/production? Yes. Basically, as Venice you typically want every one of your puppets sending food to the city of Venice. Especially if it's a sea route. Production is less important, but is something to consider if you want to build an important wonder. edit: Unless you have a huge empire, of course. Keep in mind the effects of diminishing returns and all that to judge the worth of additional food routes. Don't bother sending any food to your puppets unless they're in especially good locations. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Is there a general rule for Puppeting vs Razing? To get the fourth city (a port one), I annexed Lisbon (came with several wonders!) and puppeted Porto. Porto allows me to trade whales and due to it being a large map, the penalty on science is 2% which I honestly think will barely hurt me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm playing Venice right now on an emperor game and I didn't even consider internal trade routes. Do you station them in a puppet city and have them send you food/production? Hell yes. Food is ridiculously valuable and there are very few cash routes that will outperform internal food routes. For the first two thirds of the game I'm usually running 1-2 gold routes tops and everything else is going to food. The exception is if I have a landlocked empire with one high value port, in which case the proportions are switched because sea routes are so much better. Late in the game you have lots of trade routes, food is less important since you won't be able to reap the long-term rewards of population growth, and gold routes start scaling better than food routes, so at that point I usually wind up about half and half. the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
I encountered a very specific bug last night. Multiplayer game (on a team with my friend), quick speed, earth, BNW, no mods. -At war with Babylon, I captured one of his archaeologists that had just arrived on an antiquity site. -Being an opportunist, I parked a gatling gun there and had the archaeologist work the site while I was warring. -Neb starts to flood in units so I decide to retreat. I gamble and leave the gatling gun defending the archeologist, banking on him being able to defend the arch long enough to grab the artifact. -My gatling gun hangs on. One turn left. -Hit next turn. -I get the message telling me to choose archeology -Neb kills the GG and captures the arch -When I'm finally able to click after the turn goes through, I am unable to get past the "Choose Archaeology" button. We had to reload the game. I think this bug wouldn't have happened in SP since you can choose the artifact or culture site at the end of your turn. It pops up after hitting next turn. On multiplayer, for some reason, this doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
When I play Venice I usually use the first merchant (from optics) as a trade mission rather than a puppet. It's better than El Dorado, and I'll reinvest that money into cargo ships to seriously jump start my economy without interrupting building basic infrastructure at home. I think that's the better way to go on higher difficulties for two reasons. First, getting trade routes going is very, very important. Early game each trade route gives more science than a library, and it's the best way to keep Deity AIs from deciding to come stomp you. Going from 2 GPT to 20 gives you so many more options as well. The second reason is that unlike cities you settle yourself, city states will happily develop themselves (with higher difficulty AI bonuses) right up until you take them. It's not unusual for a city state I pick up a little later to have buildings I haven't even researched yet. Usually at least a workshop, which is pretty nice. VVVV I personally think the four city rule is BS. If you can get tangible benefit from another city, go for it. I had six cities up in the save file Bashez shared the other day, and each one was more than pulling it's own weight for science. I rarely puppet more than 2 or 3 CS's though, but that's because my Venice games inevitably end up freedom, and I prefer to keep a bunch of external trade routes open for influence and cash. way to go steve fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Does Venice break the "4 cities is optimal" rule? As in, if I can keep churning out great merchants, how many cities could you reasonably expect to puppet before culture/science penalties make it not worth it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I've always found that the 4 cities rule is really more of a guideline than the MOST optimal path. Sometimes I've found that five or six cities can end up doing much better in some circumstances. I really like extra cities for creating chokepoints or for really loving with the AI's pathing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:Does Venice break the "4 cities is optimal" rule? As in, if I can keep churning out great merchants, how many cities could you reasonably expect to puppet before culture/science penalties make it not worth it? You get no culture penalties from puppets. The science penalty is the only one to worry about, and if you aren't picking up garbage cities, then it's not a huge deal. So as Venice, you want at least a few more puppets for more food trade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:Does Venice break the "4 cities is optimal" rule? As in, if I can keep churning out great merchants, how many cities could you reasonably expect to puppet before culture/science penalties make it not worth it? The only reason why 4 cities is picked specifically is you get a free monument and free aqueduct out of the deal from tradition. You can very easily build more cities but you have to keep in mind era and diplomatic effects. 4 ends up being a good number to do pretty quickly and with, hopefully, minimal diplomatic problems. Once you get 4 you have to stop to build the national college. Usually by this time most the spots are grabbed up so expanding isn't really an option. The later the game gets the longer it will take for a city to pay off its 5% science penalty. 4 is a good guideline, if you know what you're doing in the game you know when to build more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I started this game late last night and loaded up my save, I want some thoughts on my next settle. Emperor game, randomed portugal, random map.   Do I settle as far south as possible to grab the pearls, or do I settle where the settler is now? Im not sure why I had the settler down there already, now that I'm more awake it seems I should have moved them north to grab the dyes. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:A Fort that you can use to landgrab anything anywhere is totally balanced. When it's a Great General's consumable ability. I do kinda wish there was a way to expand your borders outside of your cities, but I totally agree if it can be used offensively to grab enemy-held land.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I think if you want Dyes, you should just take Edinburgh. It's even has a strategic weakness to ranged attacks, all kinds of hills to stand on for firing over jungles at the city. The place you're looking at for that Settler is really crappy in general. What's on the other side of the mountains? Are you willing to "peek" and reload? Because if it's just more mountains there, that's the throwawayest of throwaway cities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Grundma posted:I started this game late last night and loaded up my save, I want some thoughts on my next settle. Emperor game, randomed portugal, random map. I don't think that's a good place to settle. You'll be starving the entire game. By the Dyes would be pretty good. It'll also secure your borders eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:19
|
|