Why build farther out than immediately around your Capital??

[Hawkx9]

Ok, help me out here. I've been very frustrated playing Civ III since my purchase. I'm not trying to whine but I need some guidance. I've read most every thread on this board and that over at civfanatics yet I'm still frustrated.

My problem lies mainly in the transition from Despotism to a higher gov't, namely Republic.

A question: What's the point in expanding past your "corruption point?" Everything beyond that point will yield 1 shield and 1 coin regardless of other factors. Building the necessary infrustracture in those outlying towns before a switch to Republic is a huge pain, most notably because of the cash drain. These towns will only be producting 1 coin, thus anything more than one improvement will begin to cut into your revenue.

Every town counts in Despotism, allowing 4 additional support for units and because of the ability to pop rush. Just pop rush that Granary and jack out the troops. HOWEVER , you might as well burn these towns to the ground when trying to switch out of Despotism because there will be unrest, a lack of infrastructure (why should I build infrastructure with no cash flow?), and with no troop support in Republic, each and every one of these towns will drain you because of garrison costs. Unless I plan to stay in Despotism the entire game, why even build these towns? The settler, worker, and garrison demand will only slow down my highly productive cities.

I must admitt that I'm too much of a perfectionist. In fact, I've yet to play a game past the second era. I hate stumbling into that second form of government. I've been trying to perfect my playstyle up to this point before continuing on, but it hasn't happen, thus this post.

I play on Regent - anything less and I needn't use anything but Despotism. And I'd hate to imagine a higher difficulty level.

Any help is appreciated.

[Bluefrog]

My experience in the whole government issue is simple: stick with Despotism for a while. Not forever, mind you, but a while. I usually don't switch into well into the middle ages. Any government switch past Despotism will drain the coffers fast, so you need to get some cash buillt up before you switch. This allows a couple of things to happen. First, it will allow you to still research tech and pay for your military. Second, it buys you time (pun intended) for you to build your infrastructure.

Also, let the bulk of your settlements get into city size, at least. Despotism works best in low populations. Morale due to pop rushing is easy to quash, due to martial law, for instance. But in both of the other Ancient governments, you want larger populations to support your empire. The Republic will net you one more gold per square worked, given it already produces one...but you need population to work the squares. The added cash generated will be helpful to support military expenses. Under Monarchy, you need a city to support the same number of troops a despotic town could support, so again, population is key.

Remember, just because your civ knows about a government type, doesn't mean they should immediately switch to it.

[Aeson]

There are several reasons to have these totally corrupt cities in a Republic. You may or may not care about these, some are quite important though.

To claim resources/luxuries.
To claim land area for a better score.
To claim land area so that the AI will fear/respect you more.
To claim land area so that the AI can't.
To claim a landbridge or bottleneck area.
To claim islands for staging military missions.
To claim land area that may later hold valuable resources.
For a buffer between your core cities and the AI.
For a slight production/commerce increase.

[Nakar Gabab]

Don't forget:

To give you an incremental science edge (every little city helps SOMEWHAT when it comes to research...).

[gopher]

I think Aeson put it best, all those reasons are very intelligent reasons to keep building those pitiful cities. Also, remember that in Communist govt, those cities are going to be more productive (Which counts in war mode, when you're in communism).
The most important is the Resource idea, to colonize vast tundra/desert/jungle spaces. Getting stuck in Modern with no Oil or Rubber is a quick way to either destruction or a budget deficit.

[Hawkx9]

Ok, of course those are all good reasons, resource grabbing being priority, but how are you going to support and defend those outter cities? Every improvement and garrisoned unit beyond the first is going to drain your empire in a higher form of gov't.

My biggest point is the opportunity cost of building and maintaining those far-flung towns. The settlers, workers, and units needed to sustain those cities are pop points and time taken from your core, productive cities.

Nakar, garrisoning only one troop, with no infrastructure, immediately negates that 1 commerce gained in Republic/Democracy.

Why not simply allow other civs to settle the land beyond this "corruption point" and then take them in the future if a resource or luxury is desired? You invest no time in settling, working, and defending the land, and if this area is far from the opposing civs capital, they will receive nothing for doing so, just as would you. So, don't waste time developing the land and simply take a city if it contains a valuable resource.

Why not?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Well, if there is a luxury or strategic resource, you will have it - no need to trade for it or conquer to acquire it. Rush building a harbor can give it to your empire, which has benefits far beyond the corrupt town itself. If you have a rash of corrupt towns, a leader could be used to build the forbidden palace. Voila! your crap gold sinkhole turns into a cash cow.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Hawkx9


Why not simply allow other civs to settle the land beyond this "corruption point" and then take them in the future if a resource or luxury is desired? You invest no time in settling, working, and defending the land, and if this area is far from the opposing civs capital, they will receive nothing for doing so, just as would you. So, don't waste time developing the land and simply take a city if it contains a valuable resource.

Why not?

Because the other civ isn't going to stay in that area, it will try to settle every square inch that it can. So if you don't do it first, you might end up with very little territory compared to his vast empire, and the towns you do have might end up converting to your neighbour's culture sometime down the road. And if he becomes to big, you might find that taking one of his cities isn't as easy as you thought it was going to be.

[Aeson]

Keeping more units has a side effect on the treasury, other than maintanence. The AI will offer better trades on average if your military is stronger than there's, and peace treaties can be renegotiated for added profit. Also the more units you have, the less likely the AI will declare war. Overall, it is best to maintain a large military force throughout the game, so a few extra cities needing military support shouldn't be a problem, and at the very least will pay for themselves. Gold is profuse in the later stages of the game anyways, and I usually have several thousand to spare.

Another thing is that most of the expansion period should be during Despotism. Larger cities are less productive during this time, and even corrupt cities are still valuable for their pop-rushing capabilities. Until Hospitals, allowing your cities to sit at size 12 is wasting population, and turning the excess food into workers or settlers is a good idea anyways. I try to always have a surplus of settlers on hand, or tied up in "temp" cities that can be disbanded into settlers when they are needed.

Going to war to conquer territory that could have been settled by the player earlier is a complete waste of time/resources IMO. Especially as a war for an important military resources (oil, rubber, aluminium) would have to be fought with less than optimal units. Not settling desert and tundra areas may lead to Calvary vs Infantry battles later on. These types of wars can be fought successfuly, but are very costly. Not to mention the happiness problems that will arise in a Republic or Democracy when war is declared unprovoked. If a resource is lacking, it's usually cheaper to trade for it, unless already planning on going to war.

Overall I think the benefits for these cities highly outweighs the cost involved in setting up and maintaining them. The more of the mini-map that is covered in my Civ's color, the better.


Some other reasons to have these cities:

Less global warming, the AI is terrible about pollution.

ROP's worth is based on the territory you own.

Some cities in high food areas can support several specialists. Specialist's production is corruption free commerce/research.

With conscription, population in these cities can be turned into units to disband for production in other cities, or for a quick defensive boost.

[Ironikinit]

Distant cities should be able to pay for themselves if you take a look at the numbers. The only real infrastructure needed are happiness and possibly growth. Happiness is important to keep them in WLTK mode, which greatly increases production. A city half a world away still won't produce much, but anything is better than 1 shield per turn. As Aeson noted, specialist are corruption free, an larger corrupt cities can support several specialists. Take a close look at the cities and do some bean counting. Remember that courthouses only cost one gold to support. Don't expect courthouses to help you produce more shields, just commerce.

The main thing, though, is resources. Resources are such a great idea in this game. It makes it worthwhile to colonize islands that might not really ever be worth much otherwise. It's a great motivator and a beautifully clever addition to the game.

[Cookie Monster]

One thing I've noticed is that you want to be at or close to discovering banking (proper name for this tech?) so that you can start working on getting 5 banks. Then build the Wall Street minor wonder. Once the cash starts coming in because of the Wall Street you can switch to Republic or Democracy. You can switch a little earlier too just make sure you have a big bank account.

Personally I find Republic the ideal government for a military player. (just my opinion not trying to say what is wrong and what is right)

I find that the science and tax rates are good enough to keep you moving through the tech tree at a reasonable pace. The war weariness is not nearly as bad as under democracy enabling you to wage long wars if you wish (if you like to fight a lot of wars).

[DaveV]

Re: Why build farther out than immediately around your Capital??

Originally posted by Hawkx9
I play on Regent - anything less and I needn't use anything but Despotism. And I'd hate to imagine a higher difficulty level.

Why? I'm currently playing at Emperor, and despotic conquest still seems to be very effective. My advice: forget the granaries. They suck away commerce that you could be using to buy techs or upgrade units (much better to capture the Pyramids). Build libraries or temples in a few cities for culture, then wipe out the AIs. See my saved game in the 3rd Apolyton tournament for a long-term despotic strategy at Monarch difficulty (but don't model yourself too closely after this game - I did way too much mining where it didn't help me).

[mengo76]

"Optimal" number of cities

In the editing tool you will see there is an "optimal" number of cities defined for each map size. As far as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), this means the number of cities you can have before you start getting 1shield/1gold cities no matter how close to your capital they are.

Question is: is there any way of getting more than 1shield/1gold out fo these "excess" cities? Specialists is one way as described by several ppl.

How does a courthouse or police station affect such cities? I haven't paid attention, but I would guess that they wouldn't do anything. Ironikinit seems to imply that courthouses dont give you more shields but give you more gold, but i'm not sure if he's talking about "excess" cities or just cities that are totally corrupt because they are very far away.

And the Marquis mentioned the FP - how does that affect "excess" cities? Does building the FP double the "optimal" number of cities you can have? If not, all it does is cluster your best cities around two centers instead of one (but these will be slightly less corrupt because they are on average closer to the capital or FP than before).

Another solution would be to increase this "optimal" number of cities through the editor, although some people may not like this because it means you're playing with different rules than everybody else, so you cannot compare results/strategies so well.

[Willem]

Re: "Optimal" number of cities

Originally posted by mengo76


And the Marquis mentioned the FP - how does that affect "excess" cities? Does building the FP double the "optimal" number of cities you can have? If not, all it does is cluster your best cities around two centers instead of one (but these will be slightly less corrupt because they are on average closer to the capital or FP than before).

The FP is essentially a second Palace. It doesn't affect your optimal cities, but it will reduce the corruption of all cities near it. So yes, you would end up having a cluster of "good" cities around two centers.

[vmxa1]

I think Aeson's points are key, especially how important it is to look strong to the AI at the higher levels. More land and cities and units is the way to be percieved as strong.