Managing distant corrupt towns

[Goethe80]

This is about what to do with distant, newly created towns. The scenario is like this. You've just founded a new city, far away from your capital/FP (say 30 tiles away). What's your build order?

Some basic conditions
Emp or higher (so only 1 content citizen)
Build is part of your REX, so no roads, no MP
Terrain is a couple of 2 food tiles (say 2), rest are 1-food tiles. say 1 jungle and 1 forest, rest mixed.
Early game, so still in despotism.

What I normally do is to move a military unit there, and try to build a worker ASAP. 10 turns to build, 10 turns for pop growth. I know it's not the most efficient way of building workers, but the city is really just to expand territory, and there's no real value is having it grow bigger. I suppose in the future, with better government and serious improvement, it could be a semi-decent way of building some military units, but right now, there's no other use.

What I'd like to know is what you guys do with these faraway cities. I suppose the scenario could be varied quite abit. Coastal start. High food tiles. The 1-city on a 4-5 tile island. City near AI. and the list goes on, but I thought we'd start with the basic distant corrupt city and work it from them.

[Harovan]

Depends what the city is designed for.

If nothing special, I wouldn't found it in the first place. That's because as a probable 1-shield/1-gold city it wouldn't be cost-efficient for most of the game, or even cost money to keep up the happiness improvements. Also, the military needed to defend it could better be used otherwise.

If it's a resource colony, I would put my effort into connecting it. Preferably by a harbor in the city itself, or by a yet-to-build harbor city nearby. Second would be some stuff to defend it, like walls and barracks. A worker to connect the resource, would have some priority too.

If it's a military outpost, it would obviously begin with walls and barracks, and later produce (or even cash-rush) units there, for expeditions.

In both cases, if it's near enemy territory, a cheap cultural building (library if scientific, temple otherwise) would be high on the list.

If there's hope to get it at least half productive later, I would then build a courthouse (may be even earlier) on a 1-shield basis. If there's no hope to get it productive, I'd irrigate everything around and let it be a pure specialists city.

If it's a randomly received city from a hut and can't serve another purpose, I'd consider to disband it by building a settler.

[Mr Justice]

thats a pretty difficult question to answer.

as you say there is so many variables (to add a few more , luxuries, reasources, taxation status)

firstly when im rexing i try have roads built almost right up to the "front line" of ur rex. ofc this is dependant on having enuf workers to do it. (i try make sure i do)
the less turns lost getting to the city location is obviously critical when u need to expand big and fast.

also i wont use MP unless its bordering another AI, in that case its a front line city and not really a normal one then.

from the numbers (distance, the fact that ur REXing) i would assume that the City will only produce 1 shield per turn becuase it be corrupt as hell. (based on the fact that i tightly space my cities and pack in as many as i can squeeze in, usually CxxxC or CxxxxC, but if stuck for land it be CxxC)

so as id see it my build order would be
Granery > habour (if pos) > courthouse > Aquaduct (if necessary) > marketplace > temple

the order of those might change depending on the situation, eg if their is a nice juicy reasource or lux i might go for temple earlier
i might build some workers first if im short them.

but tbh its difficult to say what i would do becuase everything i do in the game is a reaction to the world surrounding me, rather than me having a definate "plan" that i follow each time.

[Mountain Sage]

1-shield, 1-gold cities are pretty useless. Their main (only) advantage is to prevent another civ to settle that piece of land and use it as a beachhead. Of course, in time there might be (or there is already) a useful resource in their radius.
My two cents:
IFirst of all, connect the city to the roads' grid. If it's a coastal city, build a harbor for military/commerce purposes. If you fear an invasion, put a barrack. Then pump out workers and add them to more productive cities. Don't build anything else, it's not worth. Put in on 'wealth' and forget about it.

[Goethe80]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

If nothing special, I wouldn't found it in the first place. That's because as a probable 1-shield/1-gold city it wouldn't be cost-efficient for most of the game, or even cost money to keep up the happiness improvements. Also, the military needed to defend it could better be used otherwise.

But wouldn't you just want to land-grab simply to deny the AI from settling there? Also, even if the terrain is quite lousy (say... tundra, jungles and mountains), there's always the possibility of interesting resources popping up later. (not to mention the irritation from the AI sending troops across your territory just to plonk down that 1-2 towns in those areas).

oh, and depending on the govt, it might offer decent unit support, which shld help pay for it's happiness improvements.

[Goethe80]

* sorry, dbl-post *

[UnOrthOdOx]

Irritation?

Hell, I THANK the AI for settling those worthless towns for me. Saves me the cost of the settler that could be better used towards something of more importance. Besides, those cities will be mine soon enough anyway. If they're sending settler stacks THROUGH my territory, I thank them for the workers.

[Mr Justice]

aye a size 6 town in republic is worth a min 7gpt no matter what corruption is like assuming uve a reasonably large military.
that being 6gpt for the support (3 units) and 1 gpt after corruption.

assuming that the city stands for 200 turns thats
total of 1400 per city per game. not including specialists,
not to be scoffed at imo.


ofc when ur in depotism its not so important, but u have to plan ahead in this game!!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Goethe80
But wouldn't you just want to land-grab simply to deny the AI from settling there?

No. I would let the AI waste food and shields on it, focus on a smaller but efficienter empire and eventually take the cities later. As long as the REX phase goes, no settler is worth to be wasted merely to deny land to the AI. Use them instead to found cities, that yield you the most food/shield/commerce-wise.

Also, even if the terrain is quite lousy (say... tundra, jungles and mountains), there's always the possibility of interesting resources popping up later.

If you want to have all resources guaranteed, you'd have to settle the whole world. Try instead to settle on a good mix of terrain types near your core. To plopp a city and waste an early settler to grab a patch of desert in the hope for oil or saltpeter and maintain and defend that city for hundreds of turns just to see, that the desired oil popped up one tile outside your borders is very annoying.

(not to mention the irritation from the AI sending troops across your territory just to plonk down that 1-2 towns in those areas).

If the AI insists to waste resources (and settlers are VERY valuable resources early on!), let it. These cities are bound to be weak and unable to produce many defenders. Easy meat later on.

oh, and depending on the govt, it might offer decent unit support, which shld help pay for it's happiness improvements.

It does the same if you plopp it in an area where it's actually productive and able to pay for itself, reproduce (build settlers itself) and be covered by your main military forces instead of binding an extra department.

[Arrian]

IMO, the only times settling far-away totally corrupt cities makes sense are:

-to grab a luxury or strategic resource (I did this recently in the ancient age to grab ivory, which of course is a bit of both It was no small thing, either, as it required a 6 or 7 turn trip on a galley to get there from my nearest coastal city)
-as preparation for an invasion
-if you can lock up a decent-sized island with a couple of cities, denying said island to the AI and thus claiming any resources which may pop up there later, and you can do so without straining at all (which means your core is already in good shape).

Otherwise, you're probably wasting resources that could be better used elsewhere.

-Arrian

[lmtoops]

This is very good; two basic strategies and both are resonably acceptable. I would tend to lean towards Sir Ralph strategy, but I think either way will work fine.

Sometimes it's nice to have a few AI cities close to your borders. In times of War, you can conquer these cities without extending yourself. After the conquest, the AI civ. is much more responsive to peace negotiations. This is especially good for a limited war strategy (land grab or tech grab).

[Arrian]

One thing I will do with outpost cities (typically designed to grab a luxury) is rush a barracks and then rush several spearmen BEFORE I build a harbor. Then when I rush the harbor, I can upgrade the spears to pikes or whatever. That can help stave off an early AI attack. As time goes on, I will be able to reinforce the city properly.

The city I grabbed ivory with started as a spear/settler team, since that is all that could fit in my 1 galley.

IIRC, that city first built a temple, since I was religious and given its proximity to the borders of a fairly strong civ. The second thing was a barracks (rushed), and then I rushed a couple of spearmen and an archer... and then I got attacked. During the attach I upgraded an archer to a longbowman, rushed another longbow, rushed a horsemen, rushed walls, and then upgraded three spears to muskets.

I didn't need a worker, since I built the city on the ivory resource.

It was an expensive city, obviously. Temple = 29 shields * 4 gold = 116. Harbor at 79 shields * 4 gold = 316 gold. Barracks = 39 shields * 4 gold = 156 gold. 3 spearmen and 1 archer at 19shields * 4 = 304 gold. 1 longbowman at 39 shields * 4 = 156 gold. 1 horseman at 29 shields * 4 = 116 gold. 1 archer to longbow upgrade, pre-Leos = 20 shields @ 3g per = 60 gold. Walls @ 19 * 4 = 76 gold.

1300 gold right there. I also ended up rushing a courthouse and aqueduct up there, IIRC.

Good thing I was commercial.

It was worth it, though. An extra luxury to keep my people happy + the SoZ is worth 1300 gold, especially considering that I lacked iron. Those AC were nice to have until I got my War Elephants, muskets and then Cav.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

I disagree, there is no such thing as a useless town. Settle everything. It's cheaper and faster to claim territory peacefully than to rely on your military.

- Base growth/production/commerce in a corrupt city will pay back that Settler.
- Higher unit support, less for the AI.
- Better chances at resources, worse for the AI.
- 'Early warning' buffer and/or AI invasion distraction.
- AI power assessment is biased towards number of cities, population, and territory. Every deal you make will benefit from being stronger.
- 10 turn Workers will really help your pop growth in core cities.
- Avoid wasting food on pop limits in productive cities. Funnel it to new cities.

C3C (or larger mapsize) specific:

- Specialists are godly.
- Support more Armies.

[Jon Shafer]

I agree with Aeson.

Assuming all better sites are taken.

[Arrian]

Hrm. Aeson disagrees with me. I'm probably wrong, then. Trip, well, whateva!

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.

I don't do that, except with cities on distant islands I get in a peace treaty. If I build found a city myself, I am inclined to defend it, and defend it properly. That's expensive.

-Arrian