Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2003, 03:54   #1
Jesp
Settler
 
Local Time: 14:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9
The beginning phase - expansion tactic
When starting up a new CIV III game., and you need to expand as fast as possible and grab all that nice land before your neigbours, what is your strategy?

I personaly do this:

If I build a new city which has 1 food resource within its city borders I let the city grow to size 4 before building the settler. (After the settler is buildt the city will be size 2 and will still be able to have a citizen working the food resource square.)

If the new city has access to 2 food resources I let the city grow to size 5 before building the settler. (After the settler is buildt the city will be size 3 and will still be able to have 2 citizens working the food resource squares.)

...an so and so forth.

As far as I understand teach individual city will have an optimal growth rate this way, and that would be the fastest way to build settlers.

Am I correct, or does anyone use a different tactic which could be more efficient? Building early grannaries or the great pyramids maybe would boost expansion even further?
__________________
An Indecent Youngster
Jesp is offline  
Old January 17, 2003, 03:59   #2
Jesp
Settler
 
Local Time: 14:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9
Ups!

I of course mean that the city should be size 3 before building settler if 1 food source is available, and size 4 if 2 food sources are available.

My bad... It's early here.
__________________
An Indecent Youngster
Jesp is offline  
Old January 17, 2003, 15:32   #3
Datajack Franit
NationStates
King
 
Datajack Franit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italia
Posts: 2,036
I think that waiting so long for the city to grow denies you any chance of building early wonders- I'd build in this sequence: warrior, warrior, settler, warrior, barracks (only if civ is military, otherwise something else), settler, archer, archer, settler and great library/pyramids
__________________
I will never understand why some people on Apolyton find you so clever. You're predictable, mundane, and a google-whore and the most observant of us all know this. Your battles of "wits" rely on obscurity and whenever you fail to find something sufficiently obscure, like this, you just act like a 5 year old. Congratulations, molly.

Asher on molly bloom
Datajack Franit is offline  
Old January 17, 2003, 17:52   #4
Nor Me
Apolyton University
Prince
 
Local Time: 14:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 689
Jesp, that sounds fine to me.
The most important thing I missed for a long time is to use the luxury slider early. I normally send all units produced in my capital before the first settler exploring so I would normally need to use it. Certainly, you shold look at this every time one of your first 3 cities grow and not be afraid of 40%.

As an expansionist civ, I'd start with scout, scout, scout, granary and settler as this increases my chance of getting a settler from a hut.
If I'm non-expansionist and want to build a wonder, I'll build a granary inbetween two settlers as early as I can get pottery.
Generally, I don't build granaries outside of my capital early as later cities have more waste and are less well worked.

The pyramids is only worth it if you have a lot of room to settle and hope to do so peacefully. You'd normally need a granary, a dedicated worker and to use the luxury slider just for that 1 city if you build a wonder.
You have to start early to get the pyramids on a higher level and if your capital can only contribute 2 (or even 1) settler, they're going to have less benefit.

If you think that war is on the horizon early, don't bother with granaries or wonders. I suppose I'd better qualify this. I mean early i.e. you attack with archers or are likely to be rushed with archers & warriors. The colossus is sometimes helpful for a horseman rush/

One thing I would never do:
Quote:
Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I'd build in this sequence: warrior, warrior, settler, warrior, barracks (only if civ is military, otherwise something else), settler, archer, archer, settler and great library/pyramids
Why mix archers and wonders? If you are going to fight early, surely more archers would be better than those wonders?
And why build a barracks for the benefit of 2 archers? Wouldn't 3 or 4 regular archers be better than 2 veteran ones?
Nor Me is offline  
Old January 17, 2003, 18:19   #5
Datajack Franit
NationStates
King
 
Datajack Franit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italia
Posts: 2,036
I build those archers to scare off and eventually backstab the AI workers/settlers- I never play long wars in the ancient times as I have no time of building an army if I want the GL
If I don't build an early barrack those shields will be wasted on another archer/spearman, and in case the war turns in a bad way, I'd have to waste 3 turns in order of building a brand new one. Those veteran ones will never have to fight a strong opponent as they will fight in the first 10-15 turns, so an archer is the hardest foe they can expect
__________________
I will never understand why some people on Apolyton find you so clever. You're predictable, mundane, and a google-whore and the most observant of us all know this. Your battles of "wits" rely on obscurity and whenever you fail to find something sufficiently obscure, like this, you just act like a 5 year old. Congratulations, molly.

Asher on molly bloom
Datajack Franit is offline  
Old January 17, 2003, 19:56   #6
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
A barracks is a permanent 1gpt drain on the economy. That's hard to justify for a city that's going to build two units and then spend eons working on a wonder.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 18, 2003, 06:52   #7
Datajack Franit
NationStates
King
 
Datajack Franit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italia
Posts: 2,036
So EVERY single improvement of the game is a 1gpt drait, so are we supposed to build cities with no barracks, walls and libraries just because they are expensive?
__________________
I will never understand why some people on Apolyton find you so clever. You're predictable, mundane, and a google-whore and the most observant of us all know this. Your battles of "wits" rely on obscurity and whenever you fail to find something sufficiently obscure, like this, you just act like a 5 year old. Congratulations, molly.

Asher on molly bloom
Datajack Franit is offline  
Old January 18, 2003, 07:20   #8
statusperfect
King
 
statusperfect's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,333
Walls don't cost any gpt.
statusperfect is offline  
Old January 18, 2003, 08:34   #9
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Datajack Franit
So EVERY single improvement of the game is a 1gpt drait, so are we supposed to build cities with no barracks, walls and libraries just because they are expensive?
I build barracks all over the place myself, as time and priorities permit. It's the timing in this particular build queue that I call into question, building a barracks for just two units and then paying upkeep the whole time working on a wonder as expensive as the Great Library or Pyramids. Purely in terms of value per shield, it makes perfect sense. But by the time the Pyramids or Great Library is completed (with two settlers and two archers in between the barracks and wonder), the barracks will have cost far more gold than it takes to upgrade a warrior to a swordsman. That warrior-to-swordsman upgrade gets back the 20 shields you lose having to build the barracks later if you wait (remember, the queue is specifically for a militaristic civ), and the left-over gold is icing on the cake. Of course if you'd rather put all the gold into science instead of doing a warrior upgrade, you have that option too.

Nathan
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 18, 2003, 10:26   #10
Datajack Franit
NationStates
King
 
Datajack Franit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italia
Posts: 2,036
Why wasting money on upgrades if you can just slaughter them and build new ones
__________________
I will never understand why some people on Apolyton find you so clever. You're predictable, mundane, and a google-whore and the most observant of us all know this. Your battles of "wits" rely on obscurity and whenever you fail to find something sufficiently obscure, like this, you just act like a 5 year old. Congratulations, molly.

Asher on molly bloom
Datajack Franit is offline  
Old January 20, 2003, 03:15   #11
statusperfect
King
 
statusperfect's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Why wasting money on upgrades if you can just slaughter them and build new ones
Because shields is much more of a limiting factor than cash.
statusperfect is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:36.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team