Tweet
....that is the question 
What I can say with some surety is that what resources you land depends on how bold you are at grabbing land. Not every resource is going to necessarily fall into your hands, but by expanding as much as is possible without becoming militarily and economically weak, you have better odds.
There is a risk of course that a land-grab strategy will net you nothing of value as far as resources go. However, it does set you up with a number of cities and a lot of territory, which may give you an edge you can use.
In my last win, I had occupied most of a continent and there were still gaps (though my culture stretched over nearly the entire land mass) in which I could have placed more cities if I had needed to. I ended up winning on culture, but I could easily have picked another route.
It isn't generally a good idea to go nuts building cities far away from the capital, but on this particular map the nearest deposits of copper and stone were some distance away from my capital. Not having those might have made my cultural win a little more difficult though, so I took a calculated risk and set up the two outposts (Marseilles, Tours) anyway.
When my nearest neighbour (Catherine, or Russia) decided that I was becoming too much of a threat, I didn't have a problem fending her off, because while I didn't have an impressive army, I was quickly able to draft one. Three units a turn (Rifleman at the time) doesn't sound like much of an army, but it was enough for me to stave off the units which crossed the border seeking to pillage the land near Chartres, and buy time for me to train a more diverse fighting force. If I hadn't taken the initiative in securing land, I would have been in a much less favourable position.
Indeed, when I uncovered Coal, Oil, Uranium and Aluminium, I found I had done well for myself.
What I can say with some surety is that what resources you land depends on how bold you are at grabbing land. Not every resource is going to necessarily fall into your hands, but by expanding as much as is possible without becoming militarily and economically weak, you have better odds.
There is a risk of course that a land-grab strategy will net you nothing of value as far as resources go. However, it does set you up with a number of cities and a lot of territory, which may give you an edge you can use.
In my last win, I had occupied most of a continent and there were still gaps (though my culture stretched over nearly the entire land mass) in which I could have placed more cities if I had needed to. I ended up winning on culture, but I could easily have picked another route.
It isn't generally a good idea to go nuts building cities far away from the capital, but on this particular map the nearest deposits of copper and stone were some distance away from my capital. Not having those might have made my cultural win a little more difficult though, so I took a calculated risk and set up the two outposts (Marseilles, Tours) anyway.
When my nearest neighbour (Catherine, or Russia) decided that I was becoming too much of a threat, I didn't have a problem fending her off, because while I didn't have an impressive army, I was quickly able to draft one. Three units a turn (Rifleman at the time) doesn't sound like much of an army, but it was enough for me to stave off the units which crossed the border seeking to pillage the land near Chartres, and buy time for me to train a more diverse fighting force. If I hadn't taken the initiative in securing land, I would have been in a much less favourable position.
Indeed, when I uncovered Coal, Oil, Uranium and Aluminium, I found I had done well for myself.
Comment