Post by bananabandana » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:45 am
"Building up to 43k" as an isolated case is a horribly suboptimal strategy, and I agree that more capacity for troops and avoiding painting a target on yourself are both legitimate reasons for keeping your cities below 40k.
On the larger scope of things; however, I do enjoy building up to 43k eventually. As the game is right now, I see the primary deciding factor of the game a points race. Of course, world domination is a more definitive goal, but for a single player, the process to that goal can seem very far off and bleak. So getting that every bit of point edge on opponents keeps the game interesting for me.
One could argue that players who don't cap their cities have better potential for conquering more cities faster, which will ultimately give them more points. I am not arguing against that, which is why I would only build up past 40k eventually. For example, players may be attracted to 40k+ cities more than smaller cities, but they are much more likely to take a city of any decent point value that further out from the main cluster. If I have a tight cluster of like 8-10 cities, I can pretty safely start upgrading into the 40k's without fear of people targeting exclusively.
As for the better use of troops, if I get into the above scenario along with having tons of guildmates controlling all the decent cities in the surrounding area. I've pretty much castrated myself in terms of military potential for that city (aside from the occasional cross-region nuke). The city has basically become a scholarship farm, so why not build out the rest of those buildings?
In summation, I admit that 40k+ does not serve much utility value for a city, but there are situations where I would justifiably do it anyway for the extra points. Besides, I just love seeing the kickass moats!
"Building up to 43k" as an isolated case is a horribly suboptimal strategy, and I agree that more capacity for troops and avoiding painting a target on yourself are both legitimate reasons for keeping your cities below 40k.
On the larger scope of things; however, I do enjoy building up to 43k eventually. As the game is right now, I see the primary deciding factor of the game a points race. Of course, world domination is a more definitive goal, but for a single player, the process to that goal can seem very far off and bleak. So getting that every bit of point edge on opponents keeps the game interesting for me.
One could argue that players who don't cap their cities have better potential for conquering more cities faster, which will ultimately give them more points. I am not arguing against that, which is why I would only build up past 40k [i]eventually[/i]. For example, players may be attracted to 40k+ cities more than smaller cities, but they are much more likely to take a city of any decent point value that further out from the main cluster. If I have a tight cluster of like 8-10 cities, I can pretty safely start upgrading into the 40k's without fear of people targeting exclusively.
As for the better use of troops, if I get into the above scenario along with having tons of guildmates controlling all the decent cities in the surrounding area. I've pretty much castrated myself in terms of military potential for that city (aside from the occasional cross-region nuke). The city has basically become a scholarship farm, so why not build out the rest of those buildings?
In summation, I admit that 40k+ does not serve much utility value for a city, but there are situations where I would justifiably do it anyway for the extra points. Besides, I just love seeing the kickass moats!