Hi all,
I was wondering about the merits of creating a really great city early on, at the expense of growth/expansion. Does putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, help you gain a significant advantage, or is it better to have a lot of equally powerful cities?
After my recent foray into OCC territory (to those of you who haven't tried it, it's a great learning experience; trying to remain competitive with just one city will certainly force you to think about things a lot more thoroughly...no military!), I started thinking if it would a good idea to build up one amazing city as a sub-goal in a normal game.
The general idea would be to initially only build one Settler, then pretend as though you were playing OCC with your capital, and a normal game with the rest of your empire (founded on the back of your second city). This entails making sure your capital gets the Colossus, the Great Library, Shakespeare's Theater, Copernicus' Observatory and Newton's University, along with all relevant city improvements. It would also involve putting resources into your capital as a top priority, improving all squares around ASAP, joining Workers when until pop limits are reached, etc.
Of course, the downside to doing all this is that your early game is severely crippled: your best city is no longer contributing to expansion or warfare.
I know that a lot of players (myself included) try to put all the Science Wonders in one city if at all possible. What I'm talking about here is a little different: I'm referring to strategically maxing out your capital (almost) right from the start.
Has anyone tried this? Does it work? If OCC is possible, it seems to me that some of the lessons learned from those games could carry over to "normal" Civ3. Plus, it's a lot of fun to have the best city in the world, bar none!
Dominae
I was wondering about the merits of creating a really great city early on, at the expense of growth/expansion. Does putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, help you gain a significant advantage, or is it better to have a lot of equally powerful cities?
After my recent foray into OCC territory (to those of you who haven't tried it, it's a great learning experience; trying to remain competitive with just one city will certainly force you to think about things a lot more thoroughly...no military!), I started thinking if it would a good idea to build up one amazing city as a sub-goal in a normal game.
The general idea would be to initially only build one Settler, then pretend as though you were playing OCC with your capital, and a normal game with the rest of your empire (founded on the back of your second city). This entails making sure your capital gets the Colossus, the Great Library, Shakespeare's Theater, Copernicus' Observatory and Newton's University, along with all relevant city improvements. It would also involve putting resources into your capital as a top priority, improving all squares around ASAP, joining Workers when until pop limits are reached, etc.
Of course, the downside to doing all this is that your early game is severely crippled: your best city is no longer contributing to expansion or warfare.
I know that a lot of players (myself included) try to put all the Science Wonders in one city if at all possible. What I'm talking about here is a little different: I'm referring to strategically maxing out your capital (almost) right from the start.
Has anyone tried this? Does it work? If OCC is possible, it seems to me that some of the lessons learned from those games could carry over to "normal" Civ3. Plus, it's a lot of fun to have the best city in the world, bar none!
Dominae
Comment