Expansion vs Corruption. How many cities max for your empire? 20?

[Leonid]

Seems the more cities you have the corruption becomes untenable. For standard map is there nay point in settling overseas? Or expanding your empire beyond 10-15 cities?

[dainbramaged13]

editor... editor...

[Leonid]

nah, I don't like editors..seems like its cheating. Would rather try to solve the game instead fo giving myself advantages thru editor.

[albiedamned]

Like everyone else, I used to expand like crazy in Civ2. But I'm finding that it is unmanageable in Civ3 due to corruption. Moreover, it is unnecessary. I'm early in my second game now after winning as the Greeks (this time I'm the Iroquois). Once again I am pursuing the strategy of building a core of strong cities, all centered around my capital. I have 6 cities, all in good locations (I used my scout to find the spots way ahead of time), and I'm not planning on expanding any further. I have very little corruption, despite the fact that I'm still running Despotism.

So I know everyone is concerned with finding out how many cities they can build before the corruption becomes too much. But I have to wonder if you're asking the right question.

[CygnusZ]

Well, hmm, I've had an Empire of about 30 cities, it certainly didn't hurt me at all. Though some of those cities did kind of suck

It really is a personal choice, but I think having cities will always give you more than it will take away.

Is there a disadvantage to having a corrupt city? Do they ever start taking those points of commerce away? Oh well, I'm trying for a domination victory so maybe it's just my evil side speaking.

[Delbert]

number of cities.

I just finished my first game, it lasted 2 days, I lost to another civ in a diplomatic victory in 1968, i had managed to keep the peace with all my neighbors, i was playing as american's on a huge map with 8 civs total. and I had founded around 47 cities before game end. curruption was bad in the outer cities but not so bad towards the center of my empire, i just kept building courthouses and running a democratic gov.

Delbert

[Felch]

Regent on a huge map, Babylonians vs. four other civs (I wanted a relaxed game for my first time off Chieftain), and using monarchy until I get something better, I've got 45 cities. Game's not over yet, but I'm doing pretty good, corruption isn't debilitating, it just keeps your from becoming too powerful.

[Felch]

Played a little bit more, and corruption is rediculous. There must be some bug in the game. . .

Under democracy, I've got 45 cities on a huge map, and several of the later ones, even when they have courthouses, are only giving me one commerce and one production. Has anybody else had this problem?

I'm almost tempted to just sell the improvements, and tear up the terrain improvements, and give them to one of my opponents.

[Magyar Madness]

Agree completely. I found that building beyond a certain distance from a palace is worthless. The result is that we have an (rtifical) ceiling beyond which growth is impossible. Conflict therefore becomes more limited as I don't need any more space and so don't need to compete for it.

[monolith94]

There IS this little thing called Forbidden City. . .

[encyclodoc]

Problem is with forbidden city is that corruption is too high to build it in a reasonable time at a location far enough away from your capital to effectively double the size of your empire. for instance, it took about 50 game turns with mining to build forbidden city across a sea from my civ (english warlord 8 civs). about half of the city was lost to corruption, and while it did help the overseas expansion, by then the other civ's in the game we way ahead of me in total number of cities. im beginning to think that expansion sux unless you are trying to aquire resources.

[albiedamned]

Originally posted by encyclodoc
Problem is with forbidden city is that corruption is too high to build it in a reasonable time at a location far enough away from your capital to effectively double the size of your empire. for instance, it took about 50 game turns with mining to build forbidden city across a sea from my civ (english warlord 8 civs). about half of the city was lost to corruption, and while it did help the overseas expansion, by then the other civ's in the game we way ahead of me in total number of cities. im beginning to think that expansion sux unless you are trying to aquire resources.

You should use a Great Leader to rush the Forbidden Palace. That's really the only way to build it in a city which is highly corrupt.

[encyclodoc]

about that, ive attacked and defended with elite units about 20 ish times now, some units multiple times. is there something specific you need to do for them to become leaders?

(beat another civ, not barbarian, number of times, better unit, more likely attacking)

[Diety]

About leaders : people say there is a 1 / 16 chance that an elite becomes a leader and it only works against other civs (so not against barbarians).

That said, I'm played this game for about 40 hours, about half of them in combat games and still haven't got one

Did anyone get a leader from a normal unit (not a civ-specific) ? And what where the options of the game : with or without civ specific abilities ?

[EnderSword]

I've been on standard map, conquesting without burning cities or anything and the Corruption is absolutly crippling. In my worst City, a size 18 (rushed the hospital) I get 1 shield of production per turn and about 28 corrupted Sheilds, and about 40 corrupted coins.
This is an empire of about 70-80 cities, In Communism...which i thought was supposed to make corruption equal everywhere...but doesn't....?

Oh, And on Great leaders, i've gotten 6 in this single game, I can't be sure but Looks like you're more likely to get one for winning the square (instead of killing 1 in a stack of 3) and seems you're more likely to be rewarded for a fight vs. a tougher unit. This is just speculation from my experience thus far though. I've only have one arise from defending a city