I've been playing around with different CIV scenarios, and I've come to the conclusion that maybe have 50 cities isn't necessarily a good thing.
At the beginning, I'd be so focused on developing my capital city, I'd forget to create other ones for a few centuries. Which would, in turn make my other cities extremely underdeveloped compared to the the capital.
Eventually, I got the hang of the game and started off a half a dozen cities right at the beginning. This worked out for me really well, especially when the cities were spaced relatively far apart, because my trade network became huge. Thus, my handful of cities multiplied at a faster rate because the goods and services that my people had accumulated were more easily distributed. I could send my most experienced settlers and workers to build the cities at a faster rate, and my settlers were not being killed of by the barbarians because my militia was always one step ahead of them.
Then, I got greedy. I wanted the world's greatest empire. Only this time, I didn't want to achieve that title by conquering other countries, I wanted the achievement of building the empire alone. I built approximately 50 cities. The problem was, though, I'd forget about some of them. Maybe I don't really understand the concept of a "turn-based" game too well, but I'd hit enter and the game would skip some-odd years into the future, and half of my cities hadn't improved. Thus this game, which I had started with the ambition of creating the biggest and best empire CIV has ever known, ended in shambles.
The fact of the matter is, that growth is an important factor in success. However, it is important to allocate your resources in a reasonable manner. Distribution of wealth, supplies, and certain important members of your population benefit a nation greatly, but only if they are not stretched too thin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In my largest game, I wound up with 50 cities (38 founded, 12 captured), and that was my most prosperous game. It does get difficult, though, when you found cities on faraway continents and it takes 50 turns just to build a worker, let alone anything of consequence. From that perspective, conquest is easier because, as long as you don't destroy infrastructure, once you capture cities you can quickly incorporate the existing farms, mines, etc. into your empire, which means cities can build things much faster. You're definitely right, though, that growth is not always a good thing. You have to have the surplus to support it.
I had a lot of the same troubles that you did when I tried that same approach. I forgot a lot about distant cities and many worker and military units. I agree with la pensadora in that conquest is probably the easiest way to expand your empire. This way isn't perfect and does have many drawbacks including war and the economic hit that your empire will take. The advantages include taking over cities that have already been established and have developed a little bit which is really the toughest part of new cities. Another one is the new resources that you gain from the conquering of the enemy empire. They have already built improvements for these resources instead of you having to build them first when you get there.
Yeah I am right there with ya. I find myself scrambling to expand at the beginning, then later regretting my lack of planning and rapid development. I find that conquest can be too expensive and leave your army under staffed. The penalty for building away from your capital also sucks. I find I am most effective with a medium size empire 25-30 cities. Oh, and automating your units especially your workers helps.
Post a Comment