which is better?

[East Street Trader]

Very nice point, Dino. And not an idea I've seen before.

Blaupanzer. What you can do is start a settler mining but then found on that square before the work is complete. When the mine appears it stays there.

You have to take a view as to whether this is a legitimate ploy or a programming glitch.

I only fairly rarely found mountain eyries so my own experience is limited to hills. I'd expect it to be the same on mountains though.

The extra shield improves the city square further when railroads come along.

[Jim W]

quote: Originally posted by Dino the Dinosore on 11-22-2000 05:01 PM Jim - to keep your cities from starving all you need to do is make sure the amount of food generated is an even number. Only if it's an odd number can it grow too large and cause a -1 food deficit. (Assuming you don't support another settler, and ignoring food caravans.) So control your settler improvements so that when your done improving a city's squares you have an even number of food. Then when it grows to its maximum size there should be 0 extra food, and it will stabilize at that size.

Thank you for the very helpful bit of advice. I'm going to have to print it out and set it in front of me when I'm playing.

Jim W

[Jim W]

quote: Originally posted by debeest on 11-22-2000 12:42 AM Jim W, I think it's pretty inevitable that cities will grow until they run out of food. In republic or democracy, it will happen very quickly because of WLTD. Even under non-trade governments, you'll still grow until you don't have any more food, and then maybe go hungry. Don't worry about it. However many citizens your available land can support, grow the city to that size. Size 8 or size 12 is often good, so that you can skip the aqueduct or sewer. If you've got a small area in between cities, put a city there and just build settlers from it.

I assume by this that you mean building settlers to be used to build other cities?

I seem to recall that cities have this nasty habit of only supplying so many units, after which a unit, possibly one engaged in vital activities, is disbanded on you.

Jim W

I used to be a "perfectionist", and to a large degree I still am.
Looking for good science sites, I build by cities stretching out, each city using all city squares.
When I run out of land available to continue, I will go back and put secondary cities on sites halfway between 1st groups of cities. Only on acceptable sites.

[Dino the Dinosore]

Jim - to keep your cities from starving all you need to do is make sure the amount of food generated is an even number. Only if it's an odd number can it grow too large and cause a -1 food deficit. (Assuming you don't support another settler, and ignoring food caravans.) So control your settler improvements so that when your done improving a city's squares you have an even number of food. Then when it grows to its maximum size there should be 0 extra food, and it will stabilize at that size.

[Blaupanzer]

No, on the mine; the city displaces it. As to distance when sleazing, I try to keep them all within three of at least one other. That way, with roads, I can slide troops to the threatened city from at least one other. (In the old, old days, this troop shift used to be called the "Avalon Hill shuffle" after a similar practice in those old war games.)
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited November 22, 2000).]

[kcbob]

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Ming on 11-17-2000 03:43 PM</font>If I find gold, I build on it!

Again, the question of whether to build on a special square comes up. If you do build on the gold, you get a food because of the city, correct? And what if you begin to mine before you build the city? Don't you get an extra shield?

Quelle power, n'est-ce pas?

------------------
Frodo lives!
[This message has been edited by kcbob (edited November 22, 2000).]

[debeest]

Well, the AI tends to have overlaps of about two squares on each side of a city. So I figure either more than that or less than that must be right....

Jim W, I think it's pretty inevitable that cities will grow until they run out of food. In republic or democracy, it will happen very quickly because of WLTD. Even under non-trade governments, you'll still grow until you don't have any more food, and then maybe go hungry. Don't worry about it. However many citizens your available land can support, grow the city to that size. Size 8 or size 12 is often good, so that you can skip the aqueduct or sewer. If you've got a small area in between cities, put a city there and just build settlers from it.

[Moker Guy]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 11-17-2000 12:46 PM How close? As close as I can. As long as each city has some basic resources to work with, who cares. I don't need every city to grow to giant size. I've built cities when all they have is a few squares to work with... but maybe I built it as a choke point, a place to monitor "incursions", take advantage of a resource I missed, access to an ocean... whatever

well said ming, i couldnt have said it any better

Moker


------------------
Im here to play civ. Screw all of this political BS. Give me a game of civ with good players, that are more than just robots, and im having fun. I bet everyone else is too. Who cares who wins or loses? Its better to make friends than make enemies. Who knows you might run into a very important person on here.

Oh yeah EyesOfNight is the most pathetic person i have ever ment in my life.

[Ming]

How close? As close as I can. As long as each city has some basic resources to work with, who cares.
I don't need every city to grow to giant size. I've built cities when all they have is a few squares to work with... but maybe I built it as a choke point, a place to monitor "incursions", take advantage of a resource I missed, access to an ocean... whatever

[kcbob]

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Ridock The Savage on 11-17-2000 12:35 PM</font> wow, I leave for a day and come back to all these very useful replies. thanks everyone. ok...one more =) for those of you who place cities close together, about how close is the best?

I think you would probably get from most ICSers that you should go this route:

X-X

A larger model might look like this:

X-X-X
|. |. |
X-X-X

Where 'X' is a city and '-' or '|' is a road. (Ignore the '.'s) In other words, build a city, move two spaces, and build another city.

BTW. See what I mean about my diagrams?

------------------
Frodo lives!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by kcbob (edited November 17, 2000).]</font>
[This message has been edited by kcbob (edited November 17, 2000).]

All 20 square usage works best... A fair ration between food, shields and arrows and all is perfect.

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 11-17-2000 12:13 PM SO DEATH TO ICS I SAY. LET THE SLEAZER BEWARE, THE CARAVAN HAS HIM IN ITS SIGHTS. [This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited November 17, 2000).]

LOL!

En garde!

------------------
Frodo lives!

[Ridock The Savage]

wow, I leave for a day and come back to all these very useful replies. thanks everyone.

ok...one more =)

for those of you who place cities close together, about how close is the best?

[Jim W]

quote: Originally posted by HsFB on 11-16-2000 02:59 PM i personally often overlap in order to fit in cities more efficiently. also, in small free spaces i always fund cities which remain small...

I'm always playing SP, and my concentration is on fighting off the Bad Guys until I can laugh at them from far-off Alpha Centauri.

This thread makes me wonder if I'm missing something, because I invariably have to go to supermarkets and farms in order to feed my cities, otherwise they expand until they starve.

This also means that I can't overlap cities, for fear of not having enough land to feed all the people.

Is there something I ought to be doing instead, or maybe just something I _could_ be doing instead, which would allow me the same effect?

Jim W