Having a high pop city in the ancient era means good production and gold. But the player also needs to expand fast. What is the best balance between the two?
I played a recent game as the French (Commercial/Industrious). My capital was on decent terrain, adjacent to a river, and with nice special grassland all around. After my capital built its first settler, I decided to grow my capital instead of building more settlers from it. I used my other cities to build settlers and expand. Obviously, my expansion was a bit slower. But, I used my fast workers to improve my capital's city radius, and I let my capital grow. My capital reached size 8 fairly quickly, giving me a good city in the ancient era.
How many use this type of strategy? Or do you stick with the standard "crank out settlers as fast as possible frm every city until there is no room to expand, then develop your cities"?
I found that civ3 seems to greatly favor the player that slows expansion just a bit in order to develop 1 or 2 cities early.
I played a recent game as the French (Commercial/Industrious). My capital was on decent terrain, adjacent to a river, and with nice special grassland all around. After my capital built its first settler, I decided to grow my capital instead of building more settlers from it. I used my other cities to build settlers and expand. Obviously, my expansion was a bit slower. But, I used my fast workers to improve my capital's city radius, and I let my capital grow. My capital reached size 8 fairly quickly, giving me a good city in the ancient era.
How many use this type of strategy? Or do you stick with the standard "crank out settlers as fast as possible frm every city until there is no room to expand, then develop your cities"?
I found that civ3 seems to greatly favor the player that slows expansion just a bit in order to develop 1 or 2 cities early.
Comment