King Level

[Ecthy]

not early in the game... by the time your cities start to starve, you should have discovered refrigeration and give them farmland

and then, just transform a plain to grassland if necessary, to give them an even number of food produced... it's that simple to avoid starving in big cities

[The Andy-Man]

thats a good idea that is also excelent at destroying my production rates to.

[Ecthy]

hmmm..... a grassland aquare with shild produces exactly as much shields as a plains square... namely 1.

use the pattern:

ooxxoo
xxooxx

and there won't be any problem to prevent the city from starvation AND keep the production rate high... even if you don't find one with shield, productivity might decrease by 3 (with factory, mft. plant and power plant), big deal

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
thats a good idea that is also excelent at destroying my production rates to.

Ah, but if you add a road (trade arrow) where you used to have none, it turns to gold! Gold is good for rush building, which makes up for production loss.

[cpemma]

I've not found food shortage a problem with rapid growth, it's the need to get sanitation, mass transit and Hoover to keep the ball rolling, when I'd sooner be following an Armour branch to expand my empire.

Pyramids/WLTB are 2-edged swords.

A useful "instant" food boost is the supermarket - 1 extra food in the city square, no engineer required.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
i am the kind of person that likes a perfectionist republic/democracy latly. and base my game on happy people more then military.

on prince though, this means people sighning anti agression pacts, and on king it means discovering literacy whilst someone is completeing Leo's.

You build cities whereever there is grassland, AND you go for big perfectionist cities - that works on prince, but gets you into trouble on king and above, unless you're VERY good.

As you play on higher levels it becomes more important to pick a strategic direction - for example building lots of cities (not necessarily ICS) but being selective about improvements, or building far fewer cities, to make it easier to keep happiness up, WLTCD to increase pop, which makes it easier to afford and justify improvements,etc.

The game certainly does change as you go up each level - one of the reasons for its replayability.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion


that's crap... you'd have to wait for democracy way too long... go for republic early and hope the barbs won't get too annoying... of course, you have to bother with building enough roads and Mike's before changing to republic... HG can be helpful for going into republic early.

There are potentials either way - some "love" republic, some hate it. On the one hand you can use HG and trade (caravans and roads and markets) to deal with the happiness problems, and you can get lots of gold and a really good research rate, and use the WLTCD's to build up poulation strategically. OTOH you can stay in monarchy, use granaries, irrigation etc to build population, and conquer or steal techs, obviating the need for research. Both strats are viable (at least in SP), but some people are better at one or the other. And it may depend on your situation. Location on waterways can make high value trade much easier.

LOTM

[Edward]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
problem with the nicve hilly terrein thing is that after to many we love the babe days, evry where begins to starve at size 24

Size 24? I wish I had that "problem."

EOL's Michaelangelo proposal is a good one if you want to become a republic somewhat early in the game. As an expanding monarch, I tend to have unhappy cities, then a short spurt of happiness when a world-wide happiness wonder is built. If I continue expanding after building such a wonder, my civilization quickly becomes grumpy again. Just after building a happiness wonder is a great time to switch up to a more "needy" representative government. Suddenly requiring shield support for one's units can temporarily cut production (and hungry settlers will definitely crimp expansion) but these are expected costs for one's increase in arrows.

A player should consider building temples and marketplaces before the switch to minimize the period where high luxuries (or many entertainers) eat one's production more than supported units do. Since I build many crummy cities (with few terrain and city improvements), I don't immediately reap the benefits of instant We Love mega-cities.

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
I've not found food shortage a problem with rapid growth, it's the need to get sanitation, mass transit and Hoover to keep the ball rolling, when I'd sooner be following an Armour branch to expand my empire.

Yes, a republic, especially an early one, requires more finesse and infrastructure building. Becoming a thriving republic or democracy requires a very big investment. You will be temporarily crippled. You should switch to republic only if you want to concentrate on trade and research above expansion and warfare.

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
A useful "instant" food boost is the supermarket - 1 extra food in the city square, no engineer required.

Very clever. The city square terrain improvement is automatic. In the late game, engineers are very effective at fixing city problems related to crummy land. If you have early-game food problems, a harbor is a pretty inexpensive stop-gap. One's coastal cities, especially those in rough terrain, can benefit from working ocean squares with a harbor. No shields, but you get a lot of trade and enough food to last until terrain improvements can be made.

cpemma,

Your first switch to any representative government will always be bad in the short run.

If democracy is available then by all means go for it. The only ways republic are better are: 1) one "military" unit (a caravel perhaps) can be supported before people get unhappy and unhappiness is less per military unit "in the field" and 2) not as much senate interference. These are pretty small advantages, especially since you're probably going to be pretty peaceful or you wouldn't be switching to a representative government in the first place. A Democracy offers unlimited science (& tax & luxury) rates, immunity to bribery, and the cheap (versus cathedrals and coliseums) happy courthouse option. Shakespeare's Theater or the advent of transports can offset #1.

I wouldn't wait for democracy if it were my intention to switch to a representative government and I was finished expanding (via war and settling). The earlier you go republic, the sooner you'll have your infrastructure set up for massive science research (or perhaps massive city bribing...). Obviously government switches are long term strategic decisions. If you want to be a war monger or expansionist then representative governments are not for you, even if they are available and are "higher" forms of government. In these cases, monarchy is just fine if you can keep the people happy. If you know democracy, then the Statue of Liberty's communism or fundamentalism are much better choices for a civ bent on expansion or warfare.

[Blaupanzer]

In order to get the "instant food" for the farmland under your city, don't you need to build a supermarket? Also, even that won't work if your city is on a forest or mountain tile. Isn't that correct? (Not a big fan of farmland/Refrigeration. I always have something else for my engineers/scientists to do, it seems.)