Managing distant corrupt towns

[Aeson]

Part of it is difficulty based. High level AI's have plenty of spare units to stick in a city regardless of how far away it is, and every city they get will mean even more units are produced. Often the far flung AI cities are defended even more than core cities to (I'm assuming) negate the chance of culture flips. The player also needs every little advantage they can get.

Lower level AI's don't have the units to defend everything well. You also don't have to squeeze the last few drops out of that 'wasteland' to gain an advantage on them.

The other part of it is goal based. I generally look at everything as mine... If you don't feel the need to always conquer 66% of the world regardless of how you want to win, the efficiency of claiming that portion you aren't going to claim anyways isn't really a factor.

I guess the key is not caring if you have to give away or abandon a couple of those cities due to AI "sneak" attack. That way you don't really have to invest in defending the cities the way I invested in my ivory town. Then they probably are worth it.

Cannon fodder!

That is a good point though, I tend to place very little 'sentimental value' on anything in the game.

[Arrian]

Part of it is difficulty based. High level AI's have plenty of spare units to stick in a city regardless of how far away it is, and every city they get will mean even more units are produced. Often the far flung AI cities are defended even more than core cities to (I'm assuming) negate the chance of culture flips.

True, true. Since I play down on easy 'ole Monarch, those far-flung AI towns are no problem at all. Higher up and they might be a serious problem. I agree, btw, that the AI stocks up lots of units in those towns to try and prevent culture flips. I've often found myself wondering how and why I'm facing 5+ spearmen in a size1, zero culture town seperated from the enemy's empire by mine. I tend to approach those as easy targets, tossing 2-3 units at them, figuring that will do the job. Too often I come to realize that is a mistake (at least it is if the goal is to take those quickly and be done with them).

That is a good point though, I tend to place very little 'sentimental value' on anything in the game.

Which is one of the reasons you are so damn good at beating the snot out of it, even at the highest levels.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Trip
Assuming all better sites are taken.

Yes, exactly. Before that happens, I see no point in settling far away for no other reason than to grab land. Settle the good sites first, maybe loose, and fill up later. If there's still land available farther away (which will happen mostly on undercrowded maps, like if you play huge with 8 civs only), you still can settle that 30 tiles away city. But to settle there earlier is a waste.

As for many units in cities, I rarely see the AI sending units from its core to those cities. If they have many units in them, they must have built them in the city itself. Since this is mostly on a 1-turn basis, this would take a while. On Emperor and Demigod, which are I presume about the average level the bulk here plays, a Spearman costs 14-16 shields. This translates to 14-16 turns. If they have 5 spearmen there, you must have given them ~75 turns time. That would be very generous. On a sidenote, you can deny the AI to connect the city through roads, if it goes through your territory. To build a harbor takes another 80 turns (unless seafaring). So the probability is high, that those defenders stay Spearmen for a pretty long time, making these cities easy to take with anything stronger than archers.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yes, exactly. Before that happens, I see no point in settling far away for no other reason than to grab land. Settle the good sites first, maybe loose, and fill up later. If there's still land available farther away (which will happen mostly on undercrowded maps, like if you play huge with 8 civs only), you still can settle that 30 tiles away city. But to settle there earlier is a waste.

As for many units in cities, I rarely see the AI sending units from its core to those cities. If they have many units in them, they must have built them in the city itself. Since this is mostly on a 1-turn basis, this would take a while. On Emperor and Demigod, which are I presume about the average level the bulk here plays, a Spearman costs 14-16 shields. This translates to 14-16 turns. If they have 5 spearmen there, you must have given them ~75 turns time. That would be very generous. On a sidenote, you can deny the AI to connect the city through roads, if it goes through your territory. To build a harbor takes another 80 turns (unless seafaring). So the probability is high, that those defenders stay Spearmen for a pretty long time, making these cities easy to take with anything stronger than archers.

Precisely.

Good towns for upgrading my Knights, Cavalry, or Leader Farming when I DO get ready to..."settle" there.

Yes I'll settle the locations assuming everything better is settled, I also don't fret if the AI beats me to that tundra because I know it's easy pickings.

[lmtoops]

Arrian - IMHO, you are throwing way too much gold at a hopelessly corrupt city. Even at Monarch, you can do better than that.

I suppose the term "useless city" is too extreme, but their are cities that can wait for a secondary rex phase. And if the AI beats you too those cities...so be it.

The AI power assesment is a good point with regards to better trades. I'll give you that point. But I would still put these cities way down in the priority list.

Bottom line, I can see both strategies working fine.

If later in the game these cities become important, than I can take over the city in short order.

[Goethe80]

Originally posted by Arrian

I agree, btw, that the AI stocks up lots of units in those towns to try and prevent culture flips. I've often found myself wondering how and why I'm facing 5+ spearmen in a size1, zero culture town seperated from the enemy's empire by mine. I tend to approach those as easy targets, tossing 2-3 units at them, figuring that will do the job. Too often I come to realize that is a mistake (at least it is if the goal is to take those quickly and be done with them).

-Arrian

Heh, I tend to make that same mistake as well! Which probably explains why now I prefer to leave those cities alone (or place 1 knight/calv/whatever nearby to prevent pillaging defenders) and to demand them in the peace process instead.

I've also noticed that occassionally the AI will send defenders and workers across your territory to their far-away cities. Workers occur whenever they want, and military units typically when they're in a war with other AI (I'm assuming that when in a war, the AI decides that those far-away cities are not sufficiently protected).

Anyway, at the end of the day, there are 2 clear general strategies here. The 'grab all you can' philosophy and the 'solid core' school of thought. Strangely enough, I used to be a very much 'solid core' player, but as I've moved up to higher levels, I tend to struggle alot with that, and extensive land grabbing tends to work better for me.

[Arrian]

Arrian - IMHO, you are throwing way too much gold at a hopelessly corrupt city. Even at Monarch, you can do better than that.

I disagree. The city got me Ivory, which served as my 3rd luxury supply (so 2 happy per town with market) allowed me to build the Statue of Zeus*. Sure, a couple of the things I rushed up there were not necessary, in that I could have just built the units in my core and shuttled them up there via galley, and the courthouse was just me being me (I hate corruption. HATE it). The city never was in serious danger of being taken, anyway. It did also manage to culture flip the nearest AI town, too, by the way.

* - The Statue of Zeus, in turn, allowed me to have a solid military even though I lacked iron. That, in turn, allowed me to conquer Persia when they picked a fight, instead of just having a faux war (Persia was across a narrow strait). That gained me luxury #4, several more cities (a couple of which weren't terribly corrupt), and an AC army.

Finally, that city was actually not hopelessly corrupt. In republic, with the courthouse, before I conquered Germany (whose cities were mostly closer to my palace than my ivory city), I think the city was losing ~50% of its commerce to corruption. That's not totally hopeless.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

These strategies aren't that separate like you believe. In most cases (unless you have a very sweet start) you can't "grab land" fast enough without having a "solid core" in the first place. Especially in higher levels, where the food bonus of the AI gets more and more powerful.

To "grab land" with your third or fourth settler just for "grabbing's sake" is for certain a waste, because these cities usually can reproduce the settler only in 30 turns without being able even to build another unit (as opposed to at most 20 turns in your core, with useful stuff like units inbetween), which is a lot and matters much in the early game, because building settlers as fast as possible is the key of success in the REX phase. You can, however, grab land with your tenth or fifteenth settler, after you built a solid core.

[Arrian]

What SR said.

The only time I would use my 3rd or 4th settler to go grab some land outside of my projected core is if I noticed that it was the only way I could get my grubby paws on a source of iron during peaceful REX. I would then consider harming my REX/growth of my core in exchange for securing iron. Ivory might be worth it too. Any other luxury, nah. Maybe my 6th or 7th settler, though. Happiness good.

-Arrian

[lmtoops]

Arian - I suppose I didn't know enough about the particular game to make any comments. After you further explaination, I see that the gold was well spent.

As several have said, on higher levels 'Land Grab" doesn't work too well. After the 4th settler (Demi-God and above), sometimes it's "Grab what I can get" strategy. The AI has poplulated most other areas.

Definitely grab the iron. With the scarcity of resources and AL relucatance to trade, you can really get screwed without any iron. I had a resent game I was alone on an island with no iron, no saltpeter, no luxuaries....basically no chance of winning. I still tried, but with no luck.

I would also agree with the Ivory. Ivory is a God send when your competing with those high-level AIs.

[Mr Justice]

havent pld the Save, but im definatel;y of the opinion that no city is useless.
a hopelessly corrupt city is always worth at least 3gpt (support and 1 commerce in republic.)
once u put in courthouses and marketplaces and let it grow a bit it becomes more valuable. especially when you consider the full lifetime of the city.

and thats forgetting about specialists. particularrly civil engineers. these guys make otherwise uselessly wastefull cities become quiet effective ar producing infrastructure. ofc thats all well ahead of ur game atm.

if you have enuf "corrupt" cities around your core they also make a great soft border with an AI.
if they invade, let em have ur city, if need be. the more cities the AI takes the more his forces get bogged down.

[Mace]

In general, I think there's no such thing as a bad town.

In most of my games, I am willing to have far-flung cities that operate at a net financial loss. The positives outweigh the negatives. i.e. their use as military bases, potential resource sources, etc.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Arrian


I disagree. The city got me Ivory, which served as my 3rd luxury supply .....

I agree with you here, I will go to great lengths to capture new luxuries because trading for them from the AI is a delicate thing and always at great expense. This is particularly true in C3C with luxuries being such very sparse on continental maps.

In my current game I conqured 3/4 of Korea for three luxuries, established two colony cities in Hittite lands (which they had possessed) and am currently in the process of capturing a colony city from India for my eigth luxury. In the process of this I have been at war with the Koreans, Hittites (22 turns), Indians, Portugal, Egypt, and Scandanavia as a democracy with very little WW. As a result I turned a trade imbalance of about 200gpt (5000 lump sum every 20 turns) to a trade surplus of about 600gpt.

[Odin]

I agree with Sir Ralph. I laugh when I see the AI wating good settlers to grab huge patches of jungle. Later in the game I will thank them for clearing some of the Jungle when I take the city. I use my first sttlers to secure the choice spots and fill out my empire later. If an AI city gets in my way I raze it to the ground if they put it into a ****tly spot or keep it if it is in a better spot. I usually use Republic and Democracy governments so having lots of cities for unit support is not needed.

[joncnunn]

For far flung cities (non-coastal):

1. get the city trade connected. Have some other city supply the military units.

2. Temple, probably rushed.
3. Marketplace. Rush if needed to maintaign order or if the city reaches size 6 first.

(These two are to bring it into a WLTPD upon reaching size 6, reducing max shield waste from 90% to 80%)

4. Court House : Reducing max shield waste to 80% if not in a WLTPD quite yet. (70% when the city hits size 6 and has no unhappy citizens.) Probably rushed.

5. Aquaduct : Probably rushed. To grow to grow past size 6 to increase raw shield production.

6. Police Station. Probably rushed. Reducing corruption again.

7. Catherdrial. To allow the city to grow further while maintaining WLTPD. Rush if city would fall out of WLTPD prior to natural completion.

8. Libary
9. University
10. Colosuum. Most likely allowing the city to mainitagn a WLTPD past size 12.

11. Hospital. Probably rushed.

12. Factory if this city in on the same land mass your building Hoover Dam. In this case, Rush complete this the turn Hoover Dam compeltes.

13. Bank

14. Stock Exchange