![]() Even if they "all live in the center tile", instead of spread amongst the 7 initial tiles, it's still 1 person per 44 square miles. And those 1000 people don't even need to be along the same 5 sq miles of main street and a few side streets. I mean, even if you have a regular work force, a modicum of defense (or law enforcement) and all that comes with that (doctors, stores, restaurants, bank, i dunno, some leisure employees) you have what is essentially a population 1 city at or just under 1000 people. I only wonder how it's somehow fundamentally different. I said it's a good idea, we don't need the justify the existence of the idea. "I will do this so I have no ability to produce anything there," doesn't make sense. This isn't really an answer to me, though. One obvious answer is no ability to produce anything at all besides extract the resource. (Combined with, again, producing said settler, of course.)ĭoubly worse if it's like, just outside your borders and/or on the edge of a continent. Also takes a pop away which isn't that terrible usually but can be prohibitive if you're already on a bad string of luck and/or got behind. ![]() Which is terrible both early game and in long/marathon games where the time to wait can be hellish. Yeah, sure, then you realize you have to build a settler for a city that only gets you maybe one resource. ![]() Yes, you have to build a settler and yes, there could be loyalty problems if you have R&F, but there is no other penalty for that extra city provided you keep it small by limitng housing or food so it doesn't require extra amenities.Ī city that gets you a strategic, or luxury, resource you would not otherwise have is not a "bad" city. Messaggio originale di cerberusiv:Colonies or outposts were a good solution to this but the difference in Civ VI, compared to V or earlier, is that there is no science or culture penalty for more cities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |