Take the 2-minute tour ×
Arqade is a question and answer site for passionate videogamers on all platforms. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Fallen Enchantress is a 4X game with magic. You start with one guy who founds a city, and try to crush the world under your iron heel (for their own good, of course).

As far as I can tell, there's no drawback to building additional cities, aside from "I could have been doing something else." Making more cities means more construction points, more research, more gold, more resources, and less territory available to your opponents. The world is scattered with wild monsters and neutral factions, but they mostly ignore cities. Is there any reason not to go wild and build as many cities as possible as soon as possible, while mostly ignoring your infrastructure and military until you run out of places to settle?

I ask because the game's tutorials are extremely basic, and I can't tell if there's some mechanism that makes city-spam unproductive (such as how Civilization IV had a "tax" on expansion, and Civilization V used Global Happiness to limit growth). The game limits spacing of cities (legal places to put a city are somewhat few and far between), but doesn't seem to have any limits on how quickly you can found new cities.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

As far as I can tell, no. The only drawback I see is that you leave yourself open to an early invasion, but the AI does not seem to go that route anyway.

However, in the expansion beta, they have changed it so that your unrest now increases in all cities depending on the number of cities you have. So if you were to eventually upgrade to the xpac you would run into that penalty as well.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.