Don't build alot of cities

[realpolitic]

To win a war game, you have to outproduce the others. Every city we build costs 30 shields plus any garrison and takes 2 pop out of action for a while. When a city produces 8 shields or is size 7 is the most efficient time. Paying a few gold for luxuries and unit costs is worth the cost, eventually we'll conquer and have no unit costs, and archers are good for some things if you're creative. Be open to spending a few bucks to have the equivalent in production, the extra cities will make up for it, and if we're a bit behind in tech, development costs go down, so with more cities we may slingshot the others.

[korn469]

the only thing is each new city (below the optimum cap) immeadiately gives us our population back (base square + worker) not only does each city also increase the total number of units we can support, it also increases the total amount of military units we can use as police, and because the base square doesn't require food upkeep, a size 3 city and a size 1 city will grow faster than a single size 4 city, then when a city grows past size 6 it needs twice the food for each citizen

we must be careful in exactly how many cities we build, neither ignoring them or just building them at the expense of everything else will win us the game

also, i have a question that I asked you before, you said

When a city produces 8 shields or is size 7 is the most efficient time.

and you mentioned before when a city builds x amount of shields is the perfect time to build an archer...so do you get this? could you please explain your methodology? i'm not saying you are right or wrong, i honestly don't know, because i don't enough information to evaluate your claim. it seems if you have a size 10 city and it is producing 8 shields per turn that it isn't always the best time to produce a settler. The same city could have have produced 8 shields at size 6, and the other citizens didn't add any shields. Also since a settler costs 30, 8 shields per turn mean that 2 shields will be wasted. 5, 6, or 10 shields per turn seems like a better number since no shields would be wasted. So could you please explain what you mean. I'm very curious about it, I'm always looking for better ways of playing and I want to know if I am just oblivious to some real advanatage. thanks!

[=OttomusCeasar=]

What's wrong with cities, I would think 6 cities buiding riders would be better than 3 cities buiding riders.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by =OttomusCeasar=
What's wrong with cities, I would think 6 cities buiding riders would be better than 3 cities buiding riders.

Yes, and it's even better if 3 of those cities are captured, so we didn't spend 6 pop building those last 3.