|
Author
|
|
Topic: road rage |  |
|
ak
Settler
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted November 24, 2000 18:43
  | 
 |
 |  |
I have two cities with borders 2 tiles apart. I can build roads to the edge of the borders but that's it. I can't connect the cities with a road without building another city in the narrow neutral corridor between the two. I tried building a fort there to see if that would do the trick but it just wasted 1000 production. Arghhh! Do you absolutely have to build another city to solve this or am I missing something? |
lago
King
King King King Ace
Nov 1999
|
|
posted November 24, 2000 18:59
 |
|
| |
One possibility: Are you certain the Fortress is finished yet? It takes several turns, and the borders aren't adjusted until it's done. |
ak
Settler
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted November 24, 2000 19:31
|
|
| |
Ahhh yes! Thanks. Didn't realize it took several turns to complete fort. I had a unit on the fort which obstructed the "under construction" look. So now I'm wondering, all else being equal, is it better to solve a situation like this with a settler (740 + loss of 1 pop.) or a fort (1000)? Sure are expensive ways to get 120 worth of road across. And there's also the issue of a city being built right away and having to wait a few turns for the fort.
[This message has been edited by ak (edited November 24, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by ak (edited November 24, 2000).] |
Sant-Gilh
Settler
Nov 2000
|
|
posted November 24, 2000 20:55
 |
|
| |
My own strategy thus far in resolving road rage -- and I sympathise with the syndrome -- has been to build fortresses rather than new cities (I've tried both). With two nearby cities, unless there's some *very* potentially productive land in between, I tend to feel that a "bridge city" would either be at a disadvantage or would "pirate" from the established cities; and the cost for bringing a settlement up to snuff is fairly hefty in the long term, so the return on the investment is a serious consideration. I also like to place cities based on long-term development and/or strategic plans, rather than simple game mechanics. And, finally, from the standpoint of game mechanics, I find it quicker and simpler to call up emergency troops from fortresses than from cities. This is just my style of playing, of course. |
DarkOrder
Chieftain
Los Angeles, CA.
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted November 26, 2000 13:47
|
|
| |
Both work, but the real question is which takes you longer? Creating a settler or creating the Public Works for the Fortification? You can tweak your production and Public Works to increase either one of these.
Smooshies 
|
Captain_Dave
Settler
...of River Tiles!
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted November 29, 2000 16:30
|
|
| |
Somebody in another thread suggested settling a new city to extend your border, build your road, then disband the city in the same turn. If ya got a spare settler just hanging around, that is. |
wysiwyg
Chieftain
Sandy, UT
Nov 2000
|
|
posted November 30, 2000 11:40
|
|
| |
Do you keep your border extension if you disband your city? If so then this ability might go-away in a patch.I think you should be able to build a road if within the vision of a unit when outside of your borders. I'd suggest this to Activision. quote:
Originally posted by Captain_Dave on 11-29-2000 04:30 PM
Somebody in another thread suggested settling a new city to extend your border, build your road, then disband the city in the same turn. If ya got a spare settler just hanging around, that is.
|
|
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
