Don't spend cosmite on anything but colonizers until there's literally nowhere left to put a colony, unless you are gathering cosmite so quickly that your colonist spam isn't using it all up.
-
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.
.png){kind=avatar}
This the perfect example of how you oversimplify : the guy focusing on 5 cities won't sleep while you build 7 others. He will build troops, mod them and harass you.
12 cities without good armies will only have you dead once someone show up on your doorstep.
The thing is, you need cities indeed, but you *also* need armies. The timing for both is where the game is : at the very beginning you can go and should go wide with colonies. But at some points, you *must* have armies. And you need to use these armies too.
And this is the question of this thread : when do you need each of them?
Apparently you can focus on colonies for the first 30 turns? I suspect it will depend on the map size and the aggressivity of your enemies.
This. Modded units are much stronger than unmodded. At turn 30 someone who spent 90 cosmite boosting their units is going to roll right over the guy who ICSed up 3 more cities. I know this because I just did it. I had a few more t2 units than them and all mine had Consuming Gaze. It was a slaughter.
I think the point is that peaceful tall play is bad. Aggressive tall play is fine.
Spending your cosmite on getting 3-mod tier 1 units and only clearing sites with them instead of colonizing is bad. Spending your cosmite on an attacking army and going to war with your neighbour is good.
Spending your cosmite on getting 3-mod tier 1 units and only clearing sites with them instead of colonizing is bad. Spending your cosmite on an attacking army and going to war with your neighbour is good.
Depends on what you do with the xeno army. If you wait until turn 40 to attack it's probably bad.
.png){kind=avatar}
.png){kind=avatar}
INFINITE CITY SPAM
it was a thing in Prior AoW's where you'd just make cities and cities and some more cities!
it was a thing in Prior AoW's where you'd just make cities and cities and some more cities!
I play this game tall in a funny way. I spend my initial cosmite to buy basic but effective unit mods so I get super elite units that don't die. Then when I have an established force of elite upgraded units and I never have to build many units ever, I can use my gold and cosmite to finally build settlers and expand.
Elite upgraded units do not cost any more gold than basic unupgraded units. That means it is a false economy not to upgrade your starting army but to build settlers instead. Also needing less gold means you can have more agricultural districts as opposed to power districts.
Elite upgraded units do not cost any more gold than basic unupgraded units. That means it is a false economy not to upgrade your starting army but to build settlers instead. Also needing less gold means you can have more agricultural districts as opposed to power districts.
Different expansion approaches influences what tall vs wide means because every game treats it differently. Fundamentally, the question is always about the timing of the cities and how many which can lead into tall or wide, in your definition it loses all meaning hence oversimplification and why you miss the entire point of this thread. Which is kind of evident when address the OP:
Is the OP asking "Is having more cities a good thing?" or is it what I am referring to? If you're saying that both our understanding of tall vs wide is incorrect then you will have to answer to the criticism as why your advice is utterly useless as a strategy ("Sir, we have barbarians at the borders." "More cities. We need more cities" ) and no value. You'll note that your definition loses value in other games too because the conversations will revolve around what the OP is asking.
Lastly, when I say it's fucking fine, I don't mean it directly to you and I would have apologized for that misunderstanding if it weren't for the fact that you're utterly disingenuous; you don't address the cosmite issue, you don't look at the context in what is being played, and you don't recognize that there are inflection points. Further proof is in your shitty example which is devoid of any the criticisms or concerns players have in this game:
" It is very simple - if two players reach mid to late game, one playing tall focusing on 5 large developed cities, can he compete with the other player who was playing wide and has 10-12 cities? The answer is no he can't. "
You really have nothing to contribute in this thread if you continue down this line.
The problem is simple:
The one person sees is mathematically (and from a viewpoint of pure peaceful relations with NPCs, not having to divert resources to a serious threat)
The other person sees it pragmatically (and from a viewpoint of game-dynamics pushing you to react to threats and map development)
Case closed.
Summary: Have as many cities as you can afford and maintain without exposing yourself to elimination through an invasion.
Conclusion: Scout the map like an eagle, and expand like a rabbit family. When you see lions, start building spears.
The one person sees is mathematically (and from a viewpoint of pure peaceful relations with NPCs, not having to divert resources to a serious threat)
The other person sees it pragmatically (and from a viewpoint of game-dynamics pushing you to react to threats and map development)
Case closed.
Summary: Have as many cities as you can afford and maintain without exposing yourself to elimination through an invasion.
Conclusion: Scout the map like an eagle, and expand like a rabbit family. When you see lions, start building spears.
The problem with this strategy is that those units won't ever become "super elite". A tier 1 unit at max XP with 3 mods can't stand up to a T3 unit fresh out of the box with 2 mods. It's not even close.
Also you don't get any long term advantage. Everyone can get their starting army to max XP and only add the last two mods to the units when they've established soms extra cities.
On a large map with 9 players by turn 30, on average, I find with my strategy that I am utterly starved of cosmite if I build 3 colonizers. I play as SynthGuard so my key unit early to mid game are going to be OWLs with double evasion mods on them (auto resolving most fights as I am getting used to the idea of MP). I think I can get away with 2 at most and then I'll need to use influence to grab a Settlement.
Even if you get away with it, I think it might be worth it to instead raid gold dungeons for loot, resources, and new expansion sites rather than immediately expand.
But I think you're asking for the pragmatics.
Also, even when you look at shit mathematically you can see different inflection points; for example, what happens when you're using the doctrine The Economist with four cities vs N other cities; what does the relationship between a few colonies with the doctrine Colonial Militia with fully developed military infrastructure vs the amount of colonies you could have had not developing those 2-3 colonies churning out units, etc.
You also have large strategic operations too and end game conditions such as building 3x tower and then using a strategic operation on someone.
So my general strategy right now is scout the map like an eagle, get some spears and go hunting for the lions or wait.. I am the lion.
Really? Your contribution to the thread is a philosophical notion that it all depends on the circumstances. You've written numerous posts that boil down to 'it is all relative', and now you take it upon yourself to decide whose contribution is worthwhile?
Cosmite cost is not an argument. You gain cosmite by expanding.
But, let us finish, I have no desire to continue the discussion when we can't even agree what on the meaning of 'tall' and 'wide'.
To answer clearly OP's question - from a pure powergaming standpoint, build or conquer as many cities as you can possibly afford to build and defend, as quickly as you can.
What approach you apply would indeed depend on the circumstances.
True.
Reading some other opinions and playstyles to compare to is interesting.
I for one go 2nd city immediatelly, then I tech to tier 2, get some tactic pool, and then 3rd city. I make regular use of the strategic recon outpost, and try to avoid border collision to not get in conflict. However, since a city so worth so much more, if you can get those nice buildings in the sectors freed, I tend to adapt my army strength to the next interesting sector, growing like a snake towards them, and trying to field an army ASAP that can clear those buildings.
The whole economy tree though seems to fall behind, as I never get to it as other stuff is more important, which I thought is a bit weird. After all you get shown the icons for the sectors right in your face all the time, which always makes me go: "I need to unlock that FERTILE PLAIN spec (or whatever spec for that matter). By the time I actually get to it, I have enough food anyway, and usually fought my first war and maybe eliminated the first NPC.
So somehow it feels a bit off. I always WANT to go more eco early, but I never actually do (so far).
And when in multiplayer, it seems that you are so pressed for military strength that 75% of the game lies dormant. If you have a human player at your doorsteps, spamming units, there just is no time for more cities and more eco. Which I find a bit sad.
Last edited:
My contribution to this thread is pointing out how stupid your advice is and my criticism boils down to "what about that cosmite" -- if you're going to strawman my argument do it right.
Cosmite is limited to the amount of spawns available and tech gates; even if you expand into the area you will have to cleanse the area or use influence. You do not gain more influence by expanding either (as far as I am aware). So, expanding doesn't necessarily gain you cosmite. You can say expanding gains you food, energy, research etc but it does not guarantee you cosmite.
Then again even your current advice is garbage because it still doesn't address the OP's question(s) clearly:
"What is your pace and when do you build a new city? How far away from the starting sektor? Any specializations you prefer in those first cities? Any milestones you see viable for going for the next city? Any particular power progression?"
There's no need to be aggressive to one another.
There are a few sites that give influence, but only +2 per site. The bulk of your extra influence gains are from relations with NPC factions and tech.