Discussion Founding a city really so bad?

[DeletedUser41460]

Everywhere I turn, I read that founding a city is discouraged or despised. The reason seems to be that building a city is costy. But when I work the math, it still seems to me that founding is a viable option. Consider this, by founding, you don't need a lot of farming spaces (for army), you just need academy level 22, warehouse 13. This means you can probably found a city one week before you can conquer. Or better yet, if you've been actively making trouble while waiting for the CS, you can get the BP for even founding a second city one week before you can conquer. That means by the time you are ready to conquer like everyone else, you have been on three cities for one week. And you probably have build the two cities you founded to 2000+ points. That put you at a significant advantage over other players.

Of course here I didn't consider resource an issue. It won't be if you actively farm the villages and inactive players.

 

[DeletedUser]

First of all, grepolis is a war game not a sim city.ro: Now, if u found city at the beginning stage, u won't get any farming village. Thats a big porbelm in beginning. And then again, players don't play grepolis to get towns more than others, to get best at bp. With ur view. Players will call u simmer if u found city at that stage. U won't get any experience with real fighting. So, even if u want to be in rank by simming, after few days, when real war wage, u won't be around in that world for long time.

 

[DeletedUser41460]

Having more cities give you advantage in battle. My interest in founding city is purely from technical consideration, that is, you are able to found before you can conquer. Now I can't even build CS, but I already have BP for 3 cities.

I really don't understand the mentality behind the despise of founding a city. For me, if it gives you advantage, I don't see a reason against it.

The first few farming villages can be conquered very quickly, and once you have 3-4, your income more than covers the expense of building a city.

First of all, grepolis is a war game not a sim city.ro: Now, if u found city at the beginning stage, u won't get any farming village. Thats a big porbelm in beginning. And then again, players don't play grepolis to get towns more than others, to get best at bp. With ur view. Players will call u simmer if u found city at that stage. U won't get any experience with real fighting. So, even if u want to be in rank by simming, after few days, when real war wage, u won't be around in that world for long time.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Everywhere I turn, I read that founding a city is discouraged or despised. The reason seems to be that building a city is costy. But when I work the math, it still seems to me that founding is a viable option. Consider this, by founding, you don't need a lot of farming spaces (for army), you just need academy level 22, warehouse 13. This means you can probably found a city one week before you can conquer. Or better yet, if you've been actively making trouble while waiting for the CS, you can get the BP for even founding a second city one week before you can conquer. That means by the time you are ready to conquer like everyone else, you have been on three cities for one week. And you probably have build the two cities you founded to 2000+ points. That put you at a significant advantage over other players.

Of course here I didn't consider resource an issue. It won't be if you actively farm the villages and inactive players.

For your first or second city, I would agree that founding may be a viable approach in some circumstances, however, I would suggest carefully considering, for instance, whether in that extra week you will be able to build the founded city up past the point of a city you might've conquered. You will also want to consider whether your alliance may prefer that you conquer as many enemy cities as possible, rather than founding. After your first new city (or maybe second new city), it makes very little sense to colonize, because you already will have conquest researched by that point. However, the primary reason for not colonizing is the stigma against it; regardless of whether it may be the strategically and militarily superior decision, you will be demeaned by some people, and in certain circumstances, you may end up angering leaders within your alliance, which could cause more serious problems for you.
But when it comes down to it, I do not believe that anyone has actually posted a proper analysis exploring the cost either option, so there is no clear answer for whether or not to colonize your first city. It all depends on how you go about it.

 

[DeletedUser41460]

Actually, I have never encountered the stigma against founding in game play, I only read about it in forums. I played in another world, in which I founded a city the moment I rushed out a CS. It didn't turn me into a bully magnet. My leader not only wasn't against it, but also founded a city himself (and on a small island, against my objection. He did other things like attacking with swordman anyway, most of my alliance members did). Then made my first conquest ahead of everyone else in my ocean. That put me at around #10 in the world point wise, even though I started late. I was wanted by about every alliance in my ocean since I was way ahead of everyone in my ocean.

By the way, my second city helped in my conquest by providing resources. I believe (can't remember exactly) the resources from the second city were used in both rushing out the conquest tech and building the troops.

For your first or second city, I would agree that founding may be a viable approach in some circumstances, however, I would suggest carefully considering, for instance, whether in that extra week you will be able to build the founded city up past the point of a city you might've conquered. You will also want to consider whether your alliance may prefer that you conquer as many enemy cities as possible, rather than founding. After your first new city (or maybe second new city), it makes very little sense to colonize, because you already will have conquest researched by that point. However, the primary reason for not colonizing is the stigma against it; regardless of whether it may be the strategically and militarily superior decision, you will be demeaned by some people, and in certain circumstances, you may end up angering leaders within your alliance, which could cause more serious problems for you.
But when it comes down to it, I do not believe that anyone has actually posted a proper analysis exploring the cost either option, so there is no clear answer for whether or not to colonize your first city. It all depends on how you go about it.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Actually, I have never encountered the stigma against founding in game play, I only read about it in forums. I played in another world, in which I founded a city the moment I rushed out a CS. It didn't turn me into a bully magnet.

You will are more likely to run into the stigma with more veteran/elite/vocal players, which are the sort which are most likely to end up on the forums, but less common in game. Due to my disproportionate experience with the forums, my sense of scale is probably a bit off when it comes to estimating how people will behave.

 

[DeletedUser]

First off, of course founding a city is worse than conquering. When you conquer, you don't have to build up the city. BUT, in some cases you could found a city in a strategic spot. Let's say this island has advantages for whatever reasons and there is no city there to conquer/worth conquering. Hence you found. I find that building up a founded city isn't hard when you have a good deal other cities to support it.

 

[DeletedUser41460]

I certainly agree that conquering is better than founding. But here we are actually not comparing the two, but rather, we are comparing founding a city with doing nothing. Founding a city really doesn't get into the way of conquering. All that's extra are the resources of the CS, which you can spare without any hindrance of your conquest if you farm really hard -- the determining factor of time to conquest is building time.

There is also the consideration of cultural points. For the moment as I mentioned I still can't build CS, but I have enough CP for 3 cities. I don't know if CP will be a bottleneck later in the game since I never played that far. If that is the case, then it's a valid argument against founding.

First off, of course founding a city is worse than conquering. When you conquer, you don't have to build up the city. BUT, in some cases you could found a city in a strategic spot. Let's say this island has advantages for whatever reasons and there is no city there to conquer/worth conquering. Hence you found. I find that building up a founded city isn't hard when you have a good deal other cities to support it.

 

[DeletedUser]

CP gets more complicated as you go, but the way I pump out CP in Calydon makes me wonder HOW much more complicated...

 

[DeletedUser]

I havent bothered to read above, but here is my view about founding straight away.

The top players in a speed 2 world reach conquest in about 8 days with the new quests. IF you want to found, you can probably found in about 6 days.

lets say 3.5k city + 3k city = 6.5k points in 8-9 days.

compared with

3k city + 750 point city = 3.7k in 6-7 days.

I know which one i want

 

[Link of time]

Well, either are a malleable option.
But, ofc conquer is Better, but Founding isn't 'Frowned Upon'
In my mind, if you found on a island with farming villages, it's a-ok.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I havent bothered to read above, but here is my view about founding straight away.

The top players in a speed 2 world reach conquest in about 8 days with the new quests. IF you want to found, you can probably found in about 6 days.

lets say 3.5k city + 3k city = 6.5k points in 8-9 days.

compared with

3k city + 750 point city = 3.7k in 6-7 days.

I know which one i want

I would just like to point out that the majority of players aren't top players. And it isn't always possible to find a 3k point city that can be conquered without running into issues like the city being part of your alliance or not wanting to provoke someone, etc. The issue is that no one (including me) actually seems to know what the actual numbers are; in other words, what is the median point value for the first city you can conquer? How much time is it between colonizing and conquer? How much does it differ between speed 1 and 2 worlds (beyond st the factor of 2)? What is the relative cost of conquering vs. colonizing? How much does having a second city at all accelerate your growth? All these questions need to be answered before you can make a reasonable judgement, and no one has really done that (not that I know how you could make those measurements :S).

 

[DeletedUser41460]

Founding a city on the way to conquest doesn't prevent, or hinder you from your conquest, if managed properly, I have said that in my posts above. It actually enables you to aim higher, with the help of the founded city.

2 days from founding to conquest may also be optimistic. It may not be possible unless you have a sitting duck of a victim city. Otherwise you'd need a significantly larger army than you do for founding (you only need the troop for taking villages). That means several extra levels of farms -- they take forever to build.

I havent bothered to read above, but here is my view about founding straight away.

The top players in a speed 2 world reach conquest in about 8 days with the new quests. IF you want to found, you can probably found in about 6 days.

lets say 3.5k city + 3k city = 6.5k points in 8-9 days.

compared with

3k city + 750 point city = 3.7k in 6-7 days.

I know which one i want

 

[DeletedUser]

I think founding is bad for multiple reasons.

1) some players (including myself) like to target people who found because only 1 of their cities is good at all, so founding can paint a target on your bigger city

2)if you get help from your alliance, you can easily conquer a very large city as your second city

3)if there are large players on the island you found on, you will probably be farmed

 

[DeletedUser22115]

I think founding is bad for multiple reasons.

1) some players (including myself) like to target people who found because only 1 of their cities is good at all, so founding can paint a target on your bigger city

2)if you get help from your alliance, you can easily conquer a very large city as your second city

3)if there are large players on the island you found on, you will probably be farmed

How many times have you been preparing for world wonders? Obviously none, as you would realise you cannot win a server without colonising 100s of cities in your ocean. Colonising offers you a chance to get a city before you leave beginners protection, as some worlds have 6 day bp for a gold user they can get academy 22 warehouse 13ish and harbor 20 in. 4-5 days which gives them a chance to have the city over 1500-2000k in 1-2 days so technically is isnt a bad feature

 

[DeletedUser40768]

When the world is more developed it is not much of a bad thing. Like some people have said in here earlier, people will colonize onto enemy alliance islands to rack up bp and it forces the alliance to take your city if they want a WW island. Some people also colonize to those island without farming villages that are far from any action, and use them to build biremes or flying myth nukes. Others seem to use them to transfer resources to there bigger city early on, which is kind of pointless to me. Then other just do it because all you need to send is one transport with troops, an LS, and the CS itself. So troops are not needed to colonize. Some others like to build cities from scratch so they don't have to reset all the bad researches in the academy. I still think that in most scenarios you should just conquer another city.