Unhappy starting city with 3 population?

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by bongo
Governors can be very useful cause they save you a lot of micromanagement but they are not as effective as a human. Myself I wait to turn them on until I really need them. When I reach 10-15 cities with an representative government is about the right time. I often turn them off for special occasions like a wonder-race or when I want to starve a city down.

They are sometimes a bit slow and don't change worker orders until next turn.

BTW, my standard governor setting is manage mood, optimize production and commerce(but not food)

The governors are extremely usefull for switching governments.

[bongo]

Yes they are. Governors have removed much of the micromanaging that made civ2 so boring in the endgame.

[ArmaGeddin]

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! (done in my best Steve Martin impression) hehe.....


Yea, I didnt think I had pop rushed in any of those cities, but I guess I did. (sheepish smile). The penalty sure does last a long time.


And I figured out that crowding is just their way of saying I need a library or a temple or something.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ArmaGeddin
I checked the city tonight and they are pissed because I pop rushed and because they are crowded.

How long until the pop rush effects wear off? Also, what is this "crowding" they are talking about?

Can I toss out an I told you so back on the 18th.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Building settlers still can take more time and/or money than a quick starvation - especially in heavily corrupt foreign cities.
And sometimes the foreign civilization is still alive.

If the civ is still alive that is an even greater reason for rushing the settler, as you have a much greater chance for a CF. And it is not expensive especially if you wait a turn or two (and you usually have to wait for resistance to end anyways.) Of course, after recycling you can sell off the remaining improvements of the settler and decrease or eliminate the waiting time.

[Pyrodrew]

If the civ is still alive that is an even greater reason for rushing the settler, as you have a much greater chance for a CF.

CFs is a reason to starve if anything. I can Starve AND build libraries & temples to prevent CFs. Building Settlers does not help prevent CFs. Starvation does not cause CFs. Furthermore, using that technique when conquering multiple large foreign cities would result in numerous foreign settlers being useless in a already REX-filled map. If the civ is still alive, adding foreigners to current cities makes them unhappy eating liabilities if war starts with that civ & those foreigners are impossible to remove. Building endless settlers from 20 size 20 cities is not cheap.

it is not expensive especially if you wait a turn or two

Expensive is a relative term and depends on how your civ is doing at the time & what age you are in.

By keeping a wide variety of choices to me I leverage the strengths in each situation. Always choosing settlers over starvation is a rigid absolute to follow.

[Mad Bomber]

Pyrodrew:

The strategy is not build settlers.....

Its build a settler, abandon worthless city, found new city.

The only drawback is that it does take a few turns to get the new city off of the ground, but in the long run it is worth it IMO. (it takes considerably less time after steampower)


I did not say that you should not starve a city, that is certainly a wise option, but a size 25 city takes a long time to kill off its citizens and will often have double digit # of resisters. A high risk of a CF if you decide to keep it. The abandon/refound option is most useful when capturing core cities with no wonders built in them.

[Panag]

hi ,

the best to do if the citizens are not happy is to get some workers or settlers , in other words , try to expand , until you get some lux goods or a different form of government or improvements , ...

have a nice day

[Pyrodrew]

The strategy is not build settlers.....
Its build a settler, abandon worthless city, found new city.
a size 25 city takes a long time to kill off its citizens and will often have double digit # of resisters.

That's just it - size 25 cities are not always worthless (especially with a wonder as mentioned). If you think it's takes a long time to kill off 24 citizens, do the math to see how long it takes to rebuild a marketplace, bank, hospital, factory, harbor, stock exchange, police station, courthouse, or whatever else is in there. Core cities usually have many of these. You'll spend infinity (in time or money) if the cities are far from your capital/FB. Starvation + Build Settler/Worker will kill the city off even quicker than you think.
I have not found resisters to be a big problem to remove. For CFs, I compare the 2 civs culture, palace distance, & other factors accordingly to determine the best course of action.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


That's just it - size 25 cities are not always worthless (especially with a wonder as mentioned). If you think it's takes a long time to kill off 24 citizens, do the math to see how long it takes to rebuild a marketplace, bank, hospital, factory, harbor, stock exchange, police station, courthouse, or whatever else is in there. Core cities usually have many of these. You'll spend infinity (in time or money) if the cities are far from your capital/FB. Starvation + Build Settler/Worker will kill the city off even quicker than you think.
I have not found resisters to be a big problem to remove. For CFs, I compare the 2 civs culture, palace distance, & other factors accordingly to determine the best course of action.

hi ,

you have a good point

now , why on earth would you would kill of a city when its size 25 , ..... because you have some troubles there , well you ( as a player ) should have anticipated this before you build the city , and definatly before it came to size 25 , ......

have a nice day

[Pyrodrew]

why on earth would you would kill of a city when its size 25 , ..... because you have some troubles there , well you ( as a player ) should have anticipated this before you build the city , and definatly before it came to size 25

Because I did not build the city.
It's a conquered foreign city & I am killing foreign citizens in that city for reasons discussed earlier.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


Because I did not build the city.
It's a conquered foreign city & I am killing foreign citizens in that city for reasons discussed earlier.

hi ,

, okay , the fastest way to do it is to sell buildings for settlers , if no buildings are left , or just simply not there , wait a turn and rush the settler or worker , ......

, if you get some workers from the first original citizens , sell them to an other civ , ..... its a great way to provoke a WW , ......;

have a nice day

[Pyrodrew]

the fastest way to do it is to sell buildings for settlers , if no buildings are left , or just simply not there , wait a turn and rush the settler or worker

The fastest way is to rush settlers/workers AND starve the city.

It's counter-productive to sell buildings for settlers & then spend even more time/money just to rebuild those buildings.

Keep the buildings, keep the city, just remove/kill the foreigners.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


The fastest way is to rush settlers/workers AND starve the city.

It's counter-productive to sell buildings for settlers & then spend even more time/money just to rebuild those buildings.

Keep the buildings, keep the city, just remove/kill the foreigners.

hi ,

no need to starve them , why let a worker or settler go to waste , .......

have a nice day

[Pyrodrew]

no need to starve them , why let a worker or settler go to waste

1. It's faster... remember the "fastest way";
2. It's cheaper;
3. It's better if the city does CF - less citizens for the opponent.

In addition you may not need more settlers or workers.