Tweet
Excuse the exageration. Yes, you're right, we'd have a new settler in ten turns...
However, if we had a start more like GoW's then we'd have a settler every 4 or 5 turns. It's a study of comparative advantages. When you don't have a strong enough suit in one set of cards, you counter ballance with a different set.
If we continue down the expansion by settler method, then our neighbors will out rex us into a corner, and it won't matter whether we built the granary or not.
What will matter, is that while we were building our granary, which I believe GoW and NDE have both either already completed or will do so in the next couple of turns, and while we are building our next settler, which both civs will complete in 3/4 to 1/2 the time it takes us...we could have used our shield production to crippled NDE with Military might.
I am merely saying that since we don't have enough food bonuses nearby to capitalize on rexing via a settler factory, then we'll need to lean more heavily on military expansion.
We build a settler in 10, they do it in 4 or 5, you do the math. We'll be surrounded, with no military, while they will have at least 2 more cities than us which will be producing military units.
We are doomed if we build the granary and attempt to Rex via settler factory. If I was NDE, and I caught wiff of your strategy. Then I would form a pact with GoW and rid the world of your pathetic existance.
It's a matter of survival. It's just business it's not personal.
Balance it this way.
We finish the barracks and two horsemen in the time it takes to build the Granary and one settler.
We then build a settler, then two more horsemen and another settler. We have four cities and four horsemen.
We attack the NDE city and destroy it. Then we'll have a total of four cities in the time you would believe you'd have 6 cities.
However, you'd have much fewer than that, because all of the spots for your cities would be gobbled up (peacefully) by NDE and GoW.
However, if we had a start more like GoW's then we'd have a settler every 4 or 5 turns. It's a study of comparative advantages. When you don't have a strong enough suit in one set of cards, you counter ballance with a different set.
If we continue down the expansion by settler method, then our neighbors will out rex us into a corner, and it won't matter whether we built the granary or not.
What will matter, is that while we were building our granary, which I believe GoW and NDE have both either already completed or will do so in the next couple of turns, and while we are building our next settler, which both civs will complete in 3/4 to 1/2 the time it takes us...we could have used our shield production to crippled NDE with Military might.
I am merely saying that since we don't have enough food bonuses nearby to capitalize on rexing via a settler factory, then we'll need to lean more heavily on military expansion.
We build a settler in 10, they do it in 4 or 5, you do the math. We'll be surrounded, with no military, while they will have at least 2 more cities than us which will be producing military units.
We are doomed if we build the granary and attempt to Rex via settler factory. If I was NDE, and I caught wiff of your strategy. Then I would form a pact with GoW and rid the world of your pathetic existance.
It's a matter of survival. It's just business it's not personal.
Balance it this way.
We finish the barracks and two horsemen in the time it takes to build the Granary and one settler.
We then build a settler, then two more horsemen and another settler. We have four cities and four horsemen.
We attack the NDE city and destroy it. Then we'll have a total of four cities in the time you would believe you'd have 6 cities.
However, you'd have much fewer than that, because all of the spots for your cities would be gobbled up (peacefully) by NDE and GoW.
Comment