Tweet
I was wondering what people thought. Which do you think is better in civ3, to have a large empire or a small one?
Obviously, the more territory you have the better your chances will be that you have an important strategic ressource within your borders. So, a large empire probably will have better luck getting control of strategic ressources. And of course, you will need a large empire at some point, if you are pursuing a domination victory.
On the other side, large empires will face severe corruption and waste problems depending on how big they actually are.
I always play on a standard map. I have found that expanding to about 6-7 cities is not neccessarily bad at all. For one, my corruption and waste are minimal so my empire is actually much more efficient than the larger empires. And furthermore, since I started developing my infrastructure sooner, I have better culture. In almost all my games so far, culture has really given me an advantage that I would not have had in civ2. For example, the AI will expand like mad, building cities anywhere there is room. However it often backfires, because there cities simply defect to me a few turns later.
So, my empire is smaller than others but it has more infrastructure, much higher culture and much less corruption. Those are very powerful in any game. In civ2, If I stopped expanding after 6 cities I would probably lose for sure, but I think civ3 favors the smaller empire much more than before. I have done very well in most of my games, just focusing on developing my "smaller" empires.
I really get the impression that in civ3, the rule is bigger is not better! It is often better to develop smaller but more efficient empires rather than try to build a huge powerful empire right away.
Obviously, the more territory you have the better your chances will be that you have an important strategic ressource within your borders. So, a large empire probably will have better luck getting control of strategic ressources. And of course, you will need a large empire at some point, if you are pursuing a domination victory.
On the other side, large empires will face severe corruption and waste problems depending on how big they actually are.
I always play on a standard map. I have found that expanding to about 6-7 cities is not neccessarily bad at all. For one, my corruption and waste are minimal so my empire is actually much more efficient than the larger empires. And furthermore, since I started developing my infrastructure sooner, I have better culture. In almost all my games so far, culture has really given me an advantage that I would not have had in civ2. For example, the AI will expand like mad, building cities anywhere there is room. However it often backfires, because there cities simply defect to me a few turns later.
So, my empire is smaller than others but it has more infrastructure, much higher culture and much less corruption. Those are very powerful in any game. In civ2, If I stopped expanding after 6 cities I would probably lose for sure, but I think civ3 favors the smaller empire much more than before. I have done very well in most of my games, just focusing on developing my "smaller" empires.
I really get the impression that in civ3, the rule is bigger is not better! It is often better to develop smaller but more efficient empires rather than try to build a huge powerful empire right away.
Comment