Minister of Imperial Expansion Campaign Thread

[civman2000]

overlapping->hit max city number before getting very far out, even worse corruption than the distance corruption from spreading out

[Timeline]

Originally posted by civman2000
overlapping->hit max city number before getting very far out, even worse corruption than the distance corruption from spreading out

This isn't Call to Power

[civman2000]

well, I've just always been more of a perfectionist...20+ cities !

[Jonny]

Originally posted by Timeline


Yes, but spreading cities farther apart means more corruption, and corruption really takes a hit on the economy early in the game when you have cities spread out too far apart (no overlap) as opposed to carefully managed cities (ie most bang for your buck - my way).

Not neccesarily. Cities closer together means you'll have more corruption from too many cities much sooner, espically if you put 30 cities in the same space I would put 20.

Close colonization doesn’t mean losing land. If elected, building an empire as large (or larger) than anyone els will be a top priority... and I would petition to the city planner and president that such be built (in order to secure our world dominance

These are top priorities for me as well.

Am I correct in assuming that you are talking about raising the luxery slider to cover unhappiness?! I don’t think the science buffs will like that at all....

Just 10%, and later on after sanitation. With spread out and large cities covering much land, we'll be making much more commerce, and a 10% reduction won't be that bad of a hit.

Or, if we went Communist, we wouldn't have to spend any money on luxury slider.

Of course, this won't be a problem until after our terms are up anyway.

Size 20+ cities don’t usually make their worth vs the cost of having the citz in them: A Specialist collecting 1 gold/beaker per turn in a 20+ city is simply not as effective as one collecting 3 gold/beaker per turn (like off a water tile) in a -21 size.

Well, a specialist collecting 1 gold/beaker a turn won't appear until after all the squares are being worked, so the gold/beakers made by the specialists are in addition to all the gold/beakers being made by the citizens working the land tiles.

Remember, vote for Jonny, the best choice for the Empire!

[civman2000]

if we have to increase luxuries or else have a bunch of entertainers and the entertainers can be put to work to skyrocket productivity, it's worth it even if we lose a little bit of science!

[Harovan]

A tighter packing has certain benefits, especially in the early game, when the corruption by distance is rampant, and you haven't to care yet for the corruption by city number. this can make the difference. And true, specialists are BS and don't do any good. Let 20 be the size limit. I feel, Timeline will do a darn good job.

[Spiffor]

Don't forget that specialists aren't affected by corruption, and remote-but-populated cities can give a boost in science / finance, whereas they couldn't do anything for the empire, were they not populated.

[Harovan]

Yes, remote cities are the only excuse to use specialists. But...

Without a good food resource, a remote city can't feed more than one specialist. And if you let it grow with irrigation/railroads, you will need happiness improvements, which the city usually can't afford. It'll have to be supported by the rest of the empire, which is counterproductive.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
A tighter packing has certain benefits, especially in the early game, when the corruption by distance is rampant, and you haven't to care yet for the corruption by city number. this can make the difference. And true, specialists are BS and don't do any good. Let 20 be the size limit. I feel, Timeline will do a darn good job.

Yes, I too feel Timeline will be good minister and have voted accordingly.

[Timeline]

Thanks for the support guys

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Timeline
This isn't Call to Power

Your right because in CTP we wouldn't have to worry about obscine amounst of curroption.

[Chandragupta]

One issue that seems to have been ignored by the other candidates is the issue of canal construction. By this I mean the construction of a city which will serve no other purpose than to act as an exclusive canal for our empire. In reality notable examples include the canals in Panama and Suez. Both of these make naval traffic much easier, especially in wartime when the fleet needs to be moved from one coastline of a supercontinent to another. Rather than sail around the planet, a canal makes traffic much easier.

When opportunities to build canals occur, they are sometimes missed with tragic consequences later on. I wholeheartedly endorse canal construction, as i used it frequently in civ2 and still today in civ3.

Again, good luck to all candidates. Also, thanks to the two other people who voted for me!

[Timeline]

In CTP 2 corruption was just handled differently. If I recall correctly it could get pretty bad if you tried to exceed the max city limit for your government. In Civ3 there is very little corruption based on the city limit as compared to CTP.

Civ3 corruption is much more managable with the 1.21f patch, as it has been reduced and police stations now fight corruption.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by Chandragupta
One issue that seems to have been ignored by the other candidates is the issue of canal construction.

I have addressed this throughout my campaign, and this topic is also included in my summery in the election thread as one of the reasons to elect me minister.

[Timeline]

[SPAM]WOO HOO, I AM NOW A PRINCE!!! [/SPAM]