Turn 6, 3800BC

[notyoueither]

Turn 6, 3800BC
(Current Plan)

Movement:
- Warrior: Move 7, Rename to "Grog"

Production:
Warrior (11 turns)

Science:
Mysticism (3 turns)

Worker:
n/a

Diplomacy:
n/a

Legend:
Bold indicate decisions made or apparent concensus
Italics indicate prevailing opinion

[Mudhut]

I support Grog going 7 this turn -> just to make sure we are close enough "in case." We gain little by going 9 and it's a whole lot riskier.

[Arrian]

I'm fine with caution.

-Arrian

[Hot Mustard]

7 :b:

[Hot Mustard]

<img src=http://apolyton.net/upload/thumb.php?file=22578_3800BC-Demographics.JPG> (http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22578_3800BC-Demographics.JPG)

[Hot Mustard]

Turn 6, 3800BC

Trying some variation to the turn report here.

Units
Warrior: Renamed to "Grog", moved 7. No new terrain revealed.


Science
Current: Mysticism in 3 turns


Cities

Eye of the Storm
Growth: 4 turns
Production: Warrior in 11 turns


Ok, here's where this turn's report gets interesting. When I press 'Enter' to end the turn, our borders expand and the hut pops. Is what happens considered next turn and I shouldn't share it?

[Aeson]

The info you get while playing the save you can share with the team.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Aeson
The info you get while playing the save you can share with the team.

Thank you, Mr. Mod! :)

Here goes, then:

We popped a map:
<img src=http://apolyton.net/upload/thumb.php?file=22578_3800BC-PoppedHut.JPG> (http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=22578_3800BC-PoppedHut.JPG)

It revealed two cows, a wheat, and two more huts! :D

[Blake]

SWEET!
I love map huts.

It is good to see that AH will be a great investment regardless of whether we see horses or not.

We could put a city between the cows and wheat and it'd be a very nice city even without a border pop.

We could place the 2nd city on the river where it can immediately work the cows and also share 2 floodplains and the sheep with the capital. The great thing about that site is no river crossing is needed so units can move between the two cities in 2 turns. So it'd be a very good city #2 site.

edit: Oh yeah warrior scouting path seems pretty obvious now :D. 9-8-then 7 to the hut.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Blake
edit: Oh yeah warrior scouting path seems pretty obvious now :D. 9-8-then 7 to the hut.

Yeah, we have to grab them before someone else does.

I'm also quite happy about the apparent coast northwest of us.

[Aginor]

Demographics notes:

The Horde is NOT coastal. (12 new land tiles).

The Horde did NOT switch production tiles. They are still on a 3/0/1, it appears.

[Arrian]

Good news. :b: to going after that hut. In fact, since we can see so much more, here's how I'd do it:

9, 8, 7, 7, 7.

Normally I don't like map huts, but I'm quite happy with this one. Note the other hut to the far west.

As for city placement...

The river/cow/shared sheep/floodplains site is interesting, but of course that site "wastes" the coast. We could build on the grass hill off the river. That makes the city coastal and still gets the cow and the ability to use the sheep and 1 floodplain...

Too bad there isn't a seafood resource up there.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Great news! And I concur on 98777. :b:

With respect to city placement, what about 447 of the capital instead of 477? Just a thought, I actually prefer 477 upon reflection. Also, the Flood Plains to the NE look very unhealthy, we should be careful about that we settling there.

Grocers will be our friend. ;)

Should we go for that Tribal Village to the West right away, or stick around close the capital (with Grog I mean)?

[Arrian]

Dom,

What do you think about my 777 idea?

As for the western hut...

It seems likely that we will all agree that Grog should go for the northern hut. After that, we could recall him and send the new warrior west.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Is there any purpose in 3-spacing the second city? If so, I like Dominaes 2nd choice (447) most. If not, what about 4447? It could make up for a nice production city with some cash influx as well (through river and cottages).

[vulture]

I'd prefer 4-spacing too, unless there is a compelling argument to go for 3.

4447 is a good site, but has the disanvantage of ruling out a significant port on the north coast IMHO. I'd prefer a straight 4444, leaving room for a port at EotS777 (or 7774) which still has the ability to grow to size 12 or more with decent production.

[Harovan]

Good point about the port, but 4447 would have a better production due to more hills and the opportunity to provide the food for working them (food resource). If we're out for a port site, it would be 777, which albeit is not on the river, but would have a good production (important for a port city, as only these can build ships), as it has cows and sheep in radius and one floodplain to help out. 4444 would be a more financial oriented site I guess.

I would prefer a city with a good production as second city. Our capital is weak in this regard (while being strong in food and cash) and we'd better have a factory to quickly spout out those skirmishers, if necessity (or opportunity!) arises. :)

[Blake]

8887 is another possibility. It has 4 floodplains. That's plenty for a 6-pop lashery. Unfortunately no free river connection.
(okay I am kind of assuming there will be seafood in the fog)

Also a 777 to 8887 city will seal our borders to the north.

If the city is across the river then travel in one direction will take an extra turn (for an even distance) until a road is built.

There are 9 floodplains outside our capital, and I suspect another 2 in the fog. Enough for 2, maybe 3 cities.

It is good that our city site dicussions will be "which of many good places". We are going to have no trouble finding places to put settlers.

[Arrian]

EotS is weak in production now, but won't be in the long run - there be some hills to mine.

As for the 4444 site... it's really low on food until border expansion.

The reason I like 777 is that it gets us the cow right off, shares the fp and sheep, and furthermore doesn't "waste" the coast. It'll become a solid port.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Yes, it's nice to have this sort of "problem" to work with.

And I sure do hope there is seafood under the fog! Extra health for the empire plus a monster poprush site.

-Arrian

[vulture]

4444 would be fine for food - it has 2 flood plains (currently in EotS's borders) which it will be able to use without a border expanasion, which will be plenty in the short term. Plus the river connection gets health bonuses there (once they are connected) without having to build roads.

I like 777 for the first site though, particularly if there is a seafood bonus hiding out there in a good place. Even without it the cow (and possibly use of the sheep) will enable us to get some decent production at that site and get some boats out to explore quite quickly, which would be very useful.

[Arrian]

My bad. Doh. I was looking at 44444.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
What do you think about my 777 idea?


I think it's hard to decide without further exploration, in particular the four tiles SW of the Cow and the coast NE of it.

777 is a bit awkward, as it would not be able to use all those Hills (assuming Mines) even if every flat tile were farmed. A seafood resource would definitely help, but we cannot see it yet (if it's there). I also dislike founding on Grassland Hills.

Right now I like Sir Ralph's 4447 idea, coupled with 8888. It's annoying not to work the Cow immediately, but thinking long-term when placing cities is important too.

My original suggestion, 477, is perhaps the greediest of them all, which I would still recommend if there were not other great sites available for our second city (like the Wines).

Any site working the Cow (and potentially the Sheep) is our best bet for early sustained Hammer output without whipping.