Tweet
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
More cities = less money to spend on tech = bigger backwards empire = you lose.
More cities = less money to spend on tech = bigger backwards empire = you lose.
-
Becomes a delicate balancing game. Wonder if the AI cheats any in that regard?
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." -- JFK Inaugural, 1961
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP Nomination acceptance speech (not George W. Bush 40 years later...)
2004 Presidential Candidate
2008 Presidential Candidate (for what its worth) -
I doubt it does so significantly, on noble. The AI gets a few cheats on noble but I don't think anything directly related to city maintenance costs. (Of course gold saved anywhere helps offset those costs.)Comment
-
Perhaps it's hardcoded how many cities it tries to get vs. how much income it has?
I know that I'll get advice to build a settler when I become economically powerful, even if I have no place left to put it!Comment
-
not true at all.. every game i played so far i have had many more cities than the AI and stil lheld a huge Tech lead.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Just because a mod hasn't slapped you down yet doesn't mean your signal-to-noise ratio isn't crap.
ICs is solved as it has changed from where you could have a city then another only one space gap between, now you forced to have two spaces and the upkeep does make it harder. but obviously you still need t obuidl more citys to win, it is an empire building game not a one citybuilding game.. more ccitys = biger empire.....
More cities = less money to spend on tech = bigger backwards empire = you lose.
It is a matter of balance, building your econmy buildings and science building etc...GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
yes this to me is a bug the yneed to remove. no point it asking to build settlers when the world is full.Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Perhaps it's hardcoded how many cities it tries to get vs. how much income it has?
I know that I'll get advice to build a settler when I become economically powerful, even if I have no place left to put it!GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
Exactly. Which is why ICS is dead.Originally posted by Rasputin
not true at all.. every game i played so far i have had many more cities than the AI and stil lheld a huge Tech lead.
It is a matter of balance, building your econmy buildings and science building etc...
First and formost is the fact that more cities being better has nothing to do with ICS, and second is the fact that more cities aren't necessarily better in Civ4.Comment
-
yes i think we agree on this...
ICS as it was known is DEADGM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
1st of all... Holy Necropost Batman!!!
On "topic" --- as this is originally a Civ3 thread ----
ICS is changed significantly as to be unrecognizeable... but it ain't DEAD...
Case in point --- watch how the AI plays... It's spamming settlers like mad, trying to claim every bit of unclaimed land in its purview... If the PLAYER doesn't "ICS" (in the Civ4 manner, of course), then you'll get cut off and have to engage in an expensive war for territory...Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiaturComment
-
As opposed to the ICS we didn't know?Originally posted by Rasputin
yes i think we agree on this...
ICS as it was known is DEADComment
-
meaning as in being a sleaze of size one cities ...
Now you have to Spam out many cities but make sure you put all the right building in them too.GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
ICS was possible because of buildings that provided flat bonuses. More cities meant more bonuses. Since nearly all of the Civ4 buildings provide +% bonuses instead (exceptions being culture buildings, the Palace, and the holy shrines), increasing cities without increasing the amount of land exploited doesn't accomplish anything.Mylon Mod - Adressing game pace and making big cities bigger.
Inquisition Mod - Exterminating heretic religions since 1200 ADComment
-
I don't like the use of uindeveloped cities for military advantage but I dislike artificial means to keep the number of cities down even more. I like to build as many cities as possible but i include as many unshared squares as possible into them and I fully develop them. Usually by having every improvement posiible built. On larger maps I think the same amount of civilizations with more cities makes as much sense as having more civilizations on them.Comment
-
Part 2
civ 4 way of handling ICS I totally hate because it works against the way I like to play. I think the penalties for cities should be if you go over what I would call your fair share of cities but believe this would take a total reastructuring of the A1. The fair share would be the amount of squares on the map multiplied by the percentage of land tiles divided by the number of civilizations and divided by 21(sqs in the city radius). This number could be 40 or 50 so research and other facrors would probably need to be adjusted. A city won by conquest should be a free city not part of this equation even if razed.Comment
-
I like upkeep costs. At least it's easy to calculate, and you will hopefully be able to get a readout of how much your income would take a hit when you build a settler (in the next patch, of course).Comment
Comment