I thought I was lucky; now I'm not sure

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Current game: diety/raging/7, large map.

Whether AC or World Conquest, my beginning game is always the same: put down cities perfectionist style until I've secured my borders, either by taking over the landmass or securing the chokpoint. But in my current game, I'm on a gigantic land mass -- virtually the whole southern hemisphere -- by myself! Moreover, the concentration of the other six civs on shared northern land masses means they're all at war with each other all the time, and no one has come to find me (though I'm getting intelligence through MPE). Initially, I couldn't believe my good fortune, but now I wonder: it's 1764, I still haven't got the whole continent settled, and the a significant number of my cities are 1-3 pop with no walls, a/k/a "Barb magnets" (though the core of the empire is fine, and my first two cities are the top 2 in the game). I've gone broke rushbuilding basic necessities (like temples and walls), and I'm not even supreme! There's lots I can do here, I know: use WLTPD to grow the place, cut pack science to get the gold to rushbuild, etc., but my question is: was it a mistake to go after the big, juicy land mass to begin with? What do you think?



------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[SlowwHand]

Not that my opinion matters much, but I'd do just like you've done.
Maybe you should send a boat to at least make contact with others.

[Ming]

Always keep taking as much land as you can... expand, expand, expand!

Don't even bother with city walls unless a barb shows up close to a city and then you can rush build one or two as needed...
Just build marketplaces and tons of caravans, and use WLYD's... you will be to AC before the AI by a long shot

[DaveV]

I bet you're in Republic or Democracy. Terrible governments for expansion - hungry settlers, backbreaking support costs, lots of improvements needed to keep your whiny citizens happy. All of the much-touted extra arrows get frittered away on luxuries and support costs. Keys to filling up a continent in a hurry:

1. Don't build improvements until you need them! Temples cost as many shields as a settler, and the support cost is a steady drain on your treasury.
2. Stay in monarchy until you build SoL, then revolt to communism. Keep your cities happy with martial law.
3. Don't irrigate squares during your expansion phase. Build roads and cities.
4. You should have all your cities staked out in the early AD years. Now you can start on trade routes and infrastructure. Send out the caravans first - those extra arrows will make your markets and libraries work better.

[La Fayette]

Dave
I think I might have written that .
You are the most open-minded ICSer I ever met.

(very sound advice BTW)

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[DaveV]

Solo - at the risk of being banned for heresy, I have to say I'm not a big fan of the Chapel. I can go a long way into the game before I need to research Mysticism and Philosophy, and I never need to research Polytheism or Monotheism. That's an awful lot of off-path techs to spend for the privilege of vaporizing eight caravans and building a wonder that does the same thing as two martial law units under Communism.

[Edward]

DaveV,

I agree that republic and democracy are terrible governments for rapid expansion. I usually stay in Monarchy until I've finished peacefully expanding because feudal settlers only eat 1 food. Commie settlers eat 2 food. Why is Communism superior for rapid expansion via settling new cities? Is it because martial law units are twice as effective at keeping your mega-civilization's many cities happy? (My experience may be skewed. Since I usually play on smaller maps, my riot factor probably doesn't get to be as bad as a big-mapper would encounter.)

[DaveV]

Edward,

Yes, the hungry settlers under Communism do ****** growth. On a small map, I would expect to exterminate the competition before needing to switch to Communism, but on a large map and especially in a perfectionist game, Communism has several huge advantages. The lack of a riot factor means you never have to deal with black-hatted citizens; double martial law makes it simple to keep cities under control; and, most important, the lack of corruption and waste means all your cities are fully productive. Under Monarchy, you can establish a great trade route, only to find that most of the arrows are lost to corruption. Set your trade up right, and you can have a bunch of celebrating cities producing Democratic-level arrows with a very modest luxury rate (and with three support-free units and no senate to cramp your style).

[Blaupanzer]

DaveV, excellent points regarding the civ 2 version of Communism. Disagree though on MC, since it comes a long way before Communism is available as a tech. I understand your point in terms of ICS, but for those of us who actually civilize the wilderness and build libraries and such, MC is a virtual necessity (the alternate, JSB, is much better as a supplement). With this we can get cities to the aquaduct point without making two workers in each city into entertainers.

Rufus, I am playing a similar giant continent game at the moment. I agree with DaveV, get the cities down as fast as possible, like an ICSer, then perfect them. However, I have, in fact, diverted the resources to build the Great Wall, Lighthouse, Copernicus, Great Library (I know building this is contrary to conventional wisdom. So shoot me.), and am now building MC. I am in the early AD's and still haven't filled the continents, despite finding 4 nomads and 4 advanced tribes so far. I am also number one in science and supreme. (Have 40 cities so far, 3 on islands. Continent has room for at least 20 more in the sort of overlapping semi-perfectionism many of us use since we got here and discovered DaveV's brilliant city development findings.) Should have been even more aggressive on the settler front.
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited May 15, 2001).]

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 05-15-2001 02:10 PM ...but on a large map and especially in a perfectionist game, Communism has several huge advantages. The lack of a riot factor means you never have to deal with black-hatted citizens...

No riot factor?! I didn't realize that. If you like to expand like a virus, Communism is as much a Holy Grail as fundamentalism.

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 05-15-2001 02:10 PM Set your trade up right, and you can have a bunch of celebrating cities producing Democratic-level arrows with a very modest luxury rate...

Perfect for a sprawling science approach. I'll see if I can make a (more or less) bee-line for the Statue of Liberty next game.

[solo]

DaveV,

No heresy at all, and very good points. I certainly lack experience expanding so successfully the way you do with your method, and never got to appreciate Communism because I don't like its economic penalties, but it's hard to argue with your great success with this form of government.

In games where I wanted to expand and grow as quickly as possible, I used the Chapel to control happiness early and then made a beeline to SoL and early Fundamentalism, which allows full expansion and economic growth, plus complete bliss, in which I will probably languish until some Communist knocks me on the head and changes my mind.

[solo]

Ditto to DaveV's excellent advice. I might add that you go for Monotheism and Michaelangelo's ASAP, and then you can fill up your continent quickly with the perfectionist cities that you and I prefer. The raw income and science from many cities will more than make up for the lack of city improvements.

[Gastrifitis]

Am I the only one here who likes expanding in Democracy? If you don't have to fight enemy civs, it's just a huge bonus. No corruption, unlimited learning (AS is a must, so don't worry about extra Temples) and the growth is phenomenal. With CfC, there's no reason the majority of cities should be at size 1-3 in Democracy. Make a couple of cities that churn out Engineers every turn, celebrating to grow so as to maintain the same size. You can occupy terrain as fast as you want to.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Thanks as always, guys. Looking back, there's a couple of things I can see I did wrong here. I probably should have tried to get the statue in order to go commie right away, though it would be interesting to actually do the math and see if all the extra trade arrows under democracy really end up going to luxuries. But the big thing is that, in concentrating on settling the enormous land mass I'm on (25 cities down, perfectionist style, and I'm still settling) is that I let the AI grow unchecked, except to the extent that they checked each other. As a result, a couple of AI empires are nearly as big as I am (in number of cities, anyway), and only one is truly small. Going to AC should be a piece of cake at this point, but I was hoping for world conquest (which, against all good advice, I like to start late -- after espionage and tactics at least, and preferably steel and the building of Hoover), and that's going to be a bit trickier. But thanks again. Now back into the fray...

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Here's one more vote for expansion under communism instead of representative gov't. The production benefit can be directly translated into caravans, which can make up some of the shortage of trade arrows. The higher production allows you to roll out settlers (when the camels need a rest) and expand in a manner more befitting of rabbits. No citizens are in a bad mood upon settling, either.

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon