I just build them up until their self sustaining-that takes a lot of colonists, so one more or less hardly matters (Gambia, for example, needs a 2000 population city just for zero growth.)
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I can never guarantee discovering St Helena, so I normally need a transit city for shipping. Leaving it at 700 just offends my sense of neatness.
It's also a strategically valuable asset, considering the majority of other nations will only have TPs in the area.
It's also a strategically valuable asset, considering the majority of other nations will only have TPs in the area.
Do you really like seeing colonies starve to non-existence-what a waste of money. Normally I do prefer Dakar or Senegal, but you can't always guarantee getting them-and I think I meant Guinea in my original post.
And a city in the area is a definite strategic asset, especially if you place a large fleet there-for some reason the AI will find it an irresistable target (particularly Spain or Portugal) and you can kill them in droves quite economically!
And a city in the area is a definite strategic asset, especially if you place a large fleet there-for some reason the AI will find it an irresistable target (particularly Spain or Portugal) and you can kill them in droves quite economically!
I am yet to see a colony to starve to non existence. It takes a very long time. It still is more economical than building a city in Africa while u could use those settlers in India.
I don't need places where the AI can excel at its attrition stupidity
I tend to conquer Cape Verde around there anyway, much more economical
I don't need places where the AI can excel at its attrition stupidity
I tend to conquer Cape Verde around there anyway, much more economical
Not really-I do India as well.
All cities up to 1000+ too if necessary-700 cities are so lame.
It's the naval trap that's important, more than the attritional possibilities. Besides, as long as they're there, their not doing something more annoying with those ships and troops.
All cities up to 1000+ too if necessary-700 cities are so lame.
It's the naval trap that's important, more than the attritional possibilities. Besides, as long as they're there, their not doing something more annoying with those ships and troops.
Twist and turn it the way u like but a city in West Africa means one less in India for a long while
And does this make a real difference in the long run, particularly as to the date India is overrun? No.
So each to their own.
Besides, I was curious as to how many it would take in the Guinea game to make the population grow naturally.
And I still think it's strategically advantageous-but then I play England as a "huge navy" man-as you know from other threads.
So each to their own.
Besides, I was curious as to how many it would take in the Guinea game to make the population grow naturally.
And I still think it's strategically advantageous-but then I play England as a "huge navy" man-as you know from other threads.
As u know I do too from other threads
I was just pointing out that making a colony grow out of itself in Africa is less profitable than using those settlers in Asia. Which it is. Evidently if u want to populate Africa, u just have to do so
I was just pointing out that making a colony grow out of itself in Africa is less profitable than using those settlers in Asia. Which it is. Evidently if u want to populate Africa, u just have to do so
Apart from that one city, I normally do ignore Africa these days-well, apart from Table and the South African Provinces where I can absorb the natives-I prefer colonising to building TPs anyway.