Unhappy starting city with 3 population?

[Theseus]

If Religious, try Communism.

[Mad Bomber]

Pyrodrew;

I guess it all comes down to preference and play styles. I should clarify. I play on huge maps and with only conquest as a victory condition. A result of this is many wars of foriegn occupation. To me the CF risk of keeping a size 25 city is simply to great. I'd like to be able to keep it sure, but more than likely the palace is only a short distance away. I do not like to garrison my cities not on the front line with many troops, nor do i like backtracking. Buildng all of the improvements is a pain to be sure, but much more attractive than losing 50 units to a F***ing flip. I keep cities 10 and other, and starve those. But with a size 25 city the threat is too great so I disband and rebuild (unless it has a wonder, of course) Finally when I capture a large city I have usually pounded it with arty and air and there usually is not a lot left anyway.

[Pyrodrew]

I almost always play on huge maps & remove Culture, UN, & Spaceship victories. I don't have much problem with CFs in 1.29 & PtW even with a nearby enemy palace (in another thread I noted how I've seen less CFs - maybe from 1.29/PtW and/or my evolving methods -?). And I still prefer losing 10 units, some which may have been obsolete, (1-2 turns to replace with 10-20 cities producing those units in 1-2 turns) to a temporary CF over losing a factory & other expensive buildings that take much longer. Perhaps I don't use arty & air on cities as much as you, but in other tactics and/or I have fewer allowing me to have more ground troops (?). I like the troops on the front line to save me time from the retreat & return... & to make my recently conquered cities less attractive to be attacked by the enemy & so they focus their attention on the less defended cities of my ally/allies. So I agree, it must come down to preference and play styles.

[vmxa1]

I am not sure if a wonder is worth it either. I mean most likely it is some ancient era and is obsolete. Not many would be of any interest.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I am not sure if a wonder is worth it either. I mean most likely it is some ancient era and is obsolete. Not many would be of any interest.

It does depend on the wonder. Yet, against human opponents there is no guarantee you will have built all the medieval, industrial & modern age wonders.

[Mad Bomber]

Pyrodrew:

I have been noticing fewer flips since 1.29. I think it has to so with 1.29 increasing the ablity for garrisons to suppress flips, but I am not sure of this.

What is the mixture of your army?
Here is a breakdown of my forces in a typical late game.
Mech Infantry - 182
Modern Armor- 138
Radar Arillery- 87
F-15 - 93
Bomber- 13
Stealth Bombers- 15
Stealth Fighters- 7
Obsolete units- 5
Destroyers- 35
Battleships- 21
Nuclear Subs- 21
Aegis Cruisers- 7
Carriers- 11
Tactical Nukes- 7
ICBMS- 29

I like to keep a my forces relatively balanced, the arty is used in attack, but pulled into city at end of turn ( I should note that I play with a modded game)

As for wonders, I like to keep all of them even if they are obsolete.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


It does depend on the wonder. Yet, against human opponents there is no guarantee you will have built all the medieval, industrial & modern age wonders.

The game was Huge Conquest, so I would say grabing pop 25 cities is very late late and all wonders are done and if not I am getting any that will come up. I mean I will not be getting these huge cities in the industrial age. So I am using modern armor and smashing down some civ. I do not need any wonder I may come across at this stage do I? One or two could still be viable such Sun Tzu, but do I care? Do I need free graneries here? Will it be worth tying down a large stack of troops to try to hold the city? If it filps and I lose all those units, was that wonder that good? I mean what do I need at this point? I would think only to terminate that civ. Leaving a large army in a city for enough time to get it out of resistance and not flip is not justified.
I do not think MP comes in at all on a Huge map for conquest, SP is assumed unless they state otherwise.
True, I may not get all of those wonder when they come out, but in the situation that I think they are talking about the game has gone to the point where you are trying to get the conquest accomplished, this means wonders are not a factor to me. Maybe that is not the correct picture, I just do not see size 25 cities getting captured much before this point.

[bongo]

When I'm running over those size 25 cities that usally means I'm going for a conquest(or domination) victory. Anyway, to avoid loosing large troops to CF I just place one defensive unit in my new city and leave it like that. I don't bother with building improvements or pasifying resistance until I have aquired a safe distance from that city to the original civs borders. If the city flips(it usually does), so what. I loose one unit, recapture the city and continue my offensive. When I have a safe distance(overlapping culture radius is the biggest factor for CF's) then I send in large troops to quell the resistance and start building improvements.

If I know I'm unable to hold the city for long I Might just as well raze it. Makes the AI pissed but who cares

[Pyrodrew]

I have been noticing fewer flips since 1.29

That probably is part of it.

I like to keep a my forces relatively balanced, the arty is used in attack, but pulled into city at end of turn ( I should note that I play with a modded game)

I find my mix varies depending on the map design, the Civilization I play, how well I am doing in score, & how well I am doing technologically. Generally, I would wager I use more bombers/s.bombers & ground units. More importantly, a mod might change one's strategies to make certain tactics more viable. What mod do you use that makes non-ground units (especially navy) worth producing in that quantity? And does the AI use those non-ground units effectively? I'm looking to mod myself.

SP is assumed unless they state otherwise.

I find its better not to assume.

Will it be worth tying down a large stack of troops to try to hold the city? If it filps and I lose all those units, was that wonder that good?

IMO, you over-estimate the odds of a flip thereby impacting your risk/reward calculations. Or I've been very lucky all these times. And if you consider some of the wonders... they are MORE than that good.

I do not need any wonder I may come across at this stage do I?One or two could still be viable such Sun Tzu, but do I care?

I guess not.

Regardless of your Civ games you decide to continue to play, I am surprised you wouldn't care for Sun Tzu, Leo, JS Bach, or others which would improve your score. Perhaps you are talking about a different "stage" - when you say "this stage" where exactly in the game are you?

I would think only to terminate that civ.

That's just 1 way to play. As for it as a strategy, it presents it's own problems. Terminate without a new settler means lots of empty space for new AI settlers to land. Terminate with your new settlers mean you decrease productivity AND population from existing cities - which could have been producing newer, better, more appropriate units instead. At that stage in the game Settler costs 1 turn, MA costs 1-2 turns... except MA does not decrease a domestic city's population (lower score). Foreign settlers mean you must have/had troops in the original city to keep down resistance to produce the foreign settler.

Leaving a large army in a city for enough time to get it out of resistance and not flip is not justified.

1 turn is too long? That is how quick some cities loose all their resistance. My MA never sits in foreign cities unless I feel the combined total viable MA cannot conquer the next city. Furthermore, once the main civilization is dead you don't have to starve down the city, but have a large city ready to start producing more military units for you in their factories & plants to make your conquest completed more rapidly with police stations to help against war weariness & corruption, etc. etc. etc.... rather than just 1 person farming the land starting at square 1. Of course this might not be needed if you feel you are near the end of your full conquest.

I think they are talking about the game has gone to the point where you are trying to get the conquest accomplished

Lets ask them instead.

Maybe that is not the correct picture, I just do not see size 25 cities getting captured much before this point.

I do it.

to avoid loosing large troops to CF I just place one defensive unit in my new city and leave it like that. I don't bother with building improvements or pasifying resistance until I have aquired a safe distance from that city to the original civs borders. If the city flips(it usually does), so what.

In a recent game, I was taking over size 25 cities from Egypt whose culture & palace distance was equal to mine. 1 city out of a dozen flipped - maybe that's 1.29.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

I find my mix varies depending on the map design, the Civilization I play, how well I am doing in score, & how well I am doing technologically. Generally, I would wager I use more bombers/s.bombers & ground units. More importantly, a mod might change one's strategies to make certain tactics more viable. What mod do you use that makes non-ground units (especially navy) worth producing in that quantity? And does the AI use those non-ground units effectively? I'm looking to mod myself.

I play on Huge continetal maps on regent with 80% corruption of the default values (I have corruption modded according to level) The AI will build up an effective navy if allowed to do so. In this game Greece had 27 destroyers, 19 ironclads (these are modified to be able to upgrade to DD) 19 battleships, 4 Carriers and a bunch of transports. This was the first game in which I have ever seen an AI conduct a truly proper amphibious invasion. Greece hit Japan with over 10 transports loaded with mainly MI and MA's, my jaw dropped five feet when I saw all of those units being off loaded IN A SINGLE TURN. I also modded all bombardment units to increase their effectiveness & gave air units the ability to sink ships. Also gave MI's, MA's, tanks, and Radar Arty the "all terrain as roads" flag (Radar Arty's movement was also increased to 3.) In this game the modern era really gives you the feeling of lightning warfare. It also makes the AI much more dangerous as you have to garrison all cities within 9 tiles of the front. Also the F-15 has its bombardment jacked way up and I use this as a replacement for normal Bombers.

[Willem]

Re: Unhappy starting city with 3 population?

Originally posted by ArmaGeddin
OK, I just started a game on Monarch level. I'm still in Depotism, and I have a total of 5 cities in a circle around my capital. Two of my cities have a population of three and are static, ie.... not growing. I have the A/I managing the city mood, and they both have one entertainer each. I have one Spearman in each city, and I just placed a Temple in each city.

Now I can't understand how I could still need an entertainer in these cities if I have a Temple and a Spearman in each! I thought the Temple would turn one citizen to happy, and the Spearman would turn one to happy I get three happy by default in Monarch mode, so how could there still be unhappy citizens in those cities?

I'm not at war, and I have not pop-rushed in those cities.

Is there any way to check what is causing a city to be unhappy?

Don't use the Governors to manage your citizens moods, for the most part they do a poor job. The only time I use them is if I'm at war with a Democracy. At the point in the game where you're at, you shouldn't have any Entertainers in your cities, they're just draining your production.