Where Do We Settle Next?

Sullla · May 12, 2009, 13:08

I guess I would summarize my feeling by saying that this is one case where we should make the decision in favor of what will give us more advantage in the short term. The debated city will only be useful until we conquer additional land from our enemies, which may be as short as two dozen or so turns. After that, it will be little more than a military pump/barracks city (which admittedly still holds good usefulness). We should make our decision on that basis, IMO.

With that logic, I think that the New Burgundy site should have preference. The two cities of Old Burgundy and Twin Peaks would be more useful long term, but assuming that we can conquer and hold Jericho, there's no strong reason for founding Twin Peaks at all. I like New Burgundy for its ability to work the rice, two wines tiles, and the grassland hill mine; that gets it a nice mixture of decent food, shields, and commerce, with any additional growth presumably going into working some plains forests. And most of all, I don't like the fact that Old Burgundy must steal some of Pink's best tiles to become useful. I would rather let Pink hold on to the cows and the two grassland hill mines - all of which it is currently working! So it's not like we're stealing useless tiles there.

Anyway, neither are bad spots, but I lean towards the new location.

ruff_hi · May 12, 2009, 13:24

Sullla - I don't understand your reasoning. I was reading your early sentences thinking that you would go for Old Burg as it can be up and running much quicker than NB, especially when it comes to hammers.

The tiles that I have listed above do not include any tiles stolen from PD. They do include tiles from GA, but when it is in draft mode, it will not be using those tiles.

sooooo · May 12, 2009, 13:47

Agree with Ruff - Old Burgundy is much better in the short-term and has more forests to chop. I'm changing my vote to Old Burgundy. Not necessarily because of what Ruff said, more of a gradual change of mind. However, the majority wins at the start of next turn and I believe New Burgundy still has a slight advantage.

ruff_hi · May 12, 2009, 13:51

well, sooooo to vote for OB ... doesn't that automatically bring in t-hawk too?

mostly-harmless · May 12, 2009, 14:02

Do we have a consensus that we keep Jericho (should we ever capture it, that is)? I am not sure that it is a strong city.
We probably should dotmap Templars lands to get a better idea. Jericho holds no infrastructure of any value.

mh

Zeviz · May 12, 2009, 14:28

Ruff, could you do a dotmap that includes a replacement city for Jericho? (I mean razing Jericho and putting in another city with less overlap with Constantinopole.)

Looking at Ruff's map, it looks like the best use of tiles is one of the following:
1. Old Burgundy + Jericho + a possible filler city
2. New Burgundy + Jericho Replacement (1 SW of Cows, getting to work Iron, Cows, and some cottages)

Option 1 gives more immediate benefit, so I am tempted to vote for it. (Tentative vote for Old Burgundy, which puts it narrowly ahead in total voting.)

mostly-harmless · May 12, 2009, 14:36

The overlap with Constantinople is not a problem, as it is all desert tiles (might be an oasis in there). The little problem I have is that it sit ON the iron (losing valuable hammers) and has only one cow tile.

mh

T-hawk · May 12, 2009, 19:42

No Ruff, this time I disagree with sooooo.

It's all about the rice. New Burgundy gets a 5-food tile (with irrigation) all to itself. Old Burgundy can develop at decent rate only by stealing Pink's 4-food cow, which in turn either kills Pink's growth rate or hammer rate by forcing it off its hills.

Both Burgundy sites are just about equal. The tipping factor is choking Pink Dot or not. Whatever slight advantage the Old site may have is not worth robbing Pink Dot.

ruff_hi · May 12, 2009, 23:32

Here is an analysis of Old v New.

Notes:
1) Old has not borrowed any tiles from PD
2) New borrowed the plains mine plus the plain from A1
3) 3 improvements only (3 farms for New, 2 farms and 1 mine for Old)
4) All numbers are Old v New

Tiles 14 v 16
Max Size no Specialist 10 v 13
Food 23 v 29
Hammers 19 v 16
Commerce 10 v 8
Forests 5 v 3 (only BFC and excluding the 3 for Globe)
Growth 1 -> 2 8 v 6 (growth numbers based on default tile selections)
Growth 2 -> 3 6 v 5
Growth 3 -> 4 7 v 9
Growth 4 -> 5 7 v 10

Old insists on working both grassland farms and adding food at the expense of hammers.
New insists on working the rice plus plains hill mine.

I think it depends on what type of city you want. If you want a short term city, then I don't think either of these meets your needs (Old grows to slowly and stays off hammer tiles, while New has slow medium term growth but poor hammers). If you want a medium term hammer city, then Old is the way. If you want a medium to long term commerce city, then New is the way.

Old has more forests so can get some infrastructure up quicker via chops while New has grassland cottages in its future. It might also be best to save Old's forests for lumber mills.

I'm changing my vote to a third option ... no preference between Old, New or No (ie don't settle).

mostly-harmless · May 13, 2009, 00:57

Thanks for the numbers, Ruff.
One thing that is overlooked, is that with Old Burgundy we have the option (that was the initial plan) to also settled Twin Peaks (to grab the rice and eventually the cows, should Jericho be razed). With New Burgundy we will definitely not settle the Twin Peaks spot. So New Burgundy should not only be better than Old Burgundy, but better as both old cities combined. And I think that is not the case.
Old Burgundy is not necessarily forcing PD of the rice. We are farming a lot of grassland tiles down there, which won't be used by other cities. Old Burgundy can use those for growth.

mh

sooooo · May 13, 2009, 06:49

Current Tally:

Old Burgundy:
mostly_harmless
sooooo
Dreylin
Zeviz

New Burgundy:
T-hawk
Sullla
MyOtherCar
Swiss Pauli
Sunrise089

Fence Sitters:
Ruff-Hi

Very close! Only one vote in it, currently New Bugundy is in the lead. Still time for others like Kylearan and regoarrarr to vote or others to change their mind. Ruff - aren't you getting a little sore sitting on that fence?

Let's set a time limit of when the timer ticks over. Whichever city spot is in the lead gets the settler. The city spots are very close in value so I think a slim majority is OK.

ruff_hi · May 13, 2009, 08:12

well, yes, actually. I still have a slight preference for Old but I can see the value in New. With Twin Peaks in play, that rice and nice grasslands will play a part. Also, Twin will have those grasslands 'behind' it while New will have them in 'front' - easier for pillaging.

I feel like a senator: I voted for the bill before voting against it - change me back to Old.

If we have a tie - can we get Krill to cast the deciding vote (and if something bad happens, blame him?)

Krill · May 13, 2009, 08:27

:Popcorn:

sooooo · May 13, 2009, 08:40

I see Krill as more of a fan of the dark ales than the red wine.

regoarrarr · May 13, 2009, 08:45

I have a slight preference for New Burgundy, but I could go either way

sooooo · May 13, 2009, 08:49

Oooooh, more votes. Updated tally:

Old Burgundy:
mostly_harmless
sooooo
Dreylin
Zeviz
ruff_hi

New Burgundy:
T-hawk
Sullla
MyOtherCar
Swiss Pauli
Sunrise089
regoarrarr

mostly-harmless · May 13, 2009, 08:51

I see this decision linked to our plans for this area in the future.
Old Burgundy goes with the razing of Jericho and the settling of the old Twin Peaks (replacing to some extent Jericho).
New Burgundy means we keep Jericho.
As I said earlier, I don't think Jericho is worth the trouble of keeping it and re-culturing it.

Therefore my vote for Old Burgundy, razed Jericho, Twin Peaks.

mh

darrelljs · May 13, 2009, 09:08

My vote is up for sale.

Darrell

Dreylin · May 13, 2009, 09:42

I agree with m_h's reasoning, and would like to hear what some of those voting for New Burgundy feel about the razing - or not - of Jericho.

@Darrell: I've got a peanut ... is that enought to start the bidding?

T-hawk · May 13, 2009, 10:11

Originally Posted by mostly-harmless

I see this decision linked to our plans for this area in the future.

Yes. In proposing New Burgundy, I assume we keep Jericho and have no need for a city in between. New Burgundy plus Jericho covers all the good tiles.

As I said earlier, I don't think Jericho is worth the trouble of keeping it and re-culturing it.

I think this is the other way around. I think keeping Jericho is easier. No nearby spot is so much better that it's worth the trouble of razing and rebuilding with a new settler and infrastructure from size 1 scratch.

Swiss Pauli · May 13, 2009, 10:18

If we're still fighting 2 on 1, we probably have to raze every Templar city, unless we want to go 'all-in' and try to wipe out Imperio's and Templar's main stacks in a battle to hold Jericho.

As I've posted elsewhere, I think we should settle both Old and New Burgundy, but New first for the rice, and to bring the desert road into our empire ASAP.

Sullla · May 13, 2009, 11:36

I am also basing my vote for New Burgundy on the assumption that we keep Jericho. It's not the greatest site, but not worth razing and replacing, IMO. I also don't see a spot that's much better in that area.

Kylearan · May 13, 2009, 12:10

Hi,

I hadn't voted for any Burgundy because...I fell into Analysis Paralysis.

Now that I've been hit over the head by sooooo and woken up, I think I vote for...uh

...New Burgundy. Yes, New Burgundy - on the premise that we will keep Jericho.

So there.

-Kylearan

ruff_hi · May 13, 2009, 12:22

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - go back to sleep Kylearan - you aren't helping

Zeviz · May 13, 2009, 13:05

Actually, there is no need to raze Jericho if we settle Old Burgundy.

Old Burgundy is about same as New Burgundy ignoring Jericho. (Rice farm is a very weak tile and as Ruff has shown, Old Burgundy can get as much food just working two other farms we are planning to build anyway. It makes no sence to rearrange entire dotmap just to get one extra +2f tile.)

However, if we do plan to keep Jericho, Old Burgundy will leave space for another filler city in a distant future, while New Burgundy will waste a lot of tiles. So we have:

Short term:
Old Burgundy is better because it can chop more forests and has an option of borrowing tiles from Pink. (It is about equal if we don't chop forests and borrow tiles.)

Medium term:
According to Ruff's post Old Burgundy is better for both production and commerce, unless there is a typo.

Long term:
Old Burgundy is much better, because we can put in an extra filler city between it and Jericho.

So Old Burgundy looks strictly better, regardless of what we do with Jericho.

sooooo · May 13, 2009, 13:44

Here's my reasoning: New Burgundy has terrible production. It has a rice, which will just be 4 food for a long time because it is not easily irrigated. For production it has ... a plains mine. And two lumbermills when we get to replacable parts. It will take a long time to build/slave its granary, forge and library. I think we're looking at this city too far ahead. At big size then New Burgundy will be better because it overlaps less. But we should consider which is the better city at size 5-7 and that is surely Old Burgundy. We build some farms and some mines, use some of Pink Dot's tile when Pink Dot doesn't want to use them (such as now - it could use 2 mines right now that pink isn't working), chop some forests to get the infrastructure quickly and it'll soon be a profitable size 5-8 size city. It doesn't have to work pink dot's cows all the time, just when it suits both cities.

MyOtherCar · May 13, 2009, 15:00

I don't think resettling Jericho is worth the effort, while at the same time Upper Burgundy costs less than 2 cities we would otherwise build.

It's rather unsettling that we can't settle where to settle.

Kodii · May 13, 2009, 15:23

I'm scared to offer my opinion...

As Kylearan, I have fallen into analysis paralysis, but I have slight preference for Old Burgundy. Especially if we raze Jericho (which now seems unlikely).

darrelljs · May 13, 2009, 15:31

Originally Posted by sooooo

Here's my reasoning: New Burgundy has terrible production. It has a rice, which will just be 4 food for a long time because it is not easily irrigated. For production it has ... a plains mine. And two lumbermills when we get to replacable parts.

Originally Posted by Sullla

I like New Burgundy for its ability to work the rice, two wines tiles, and the grassland hill mine; that gets it a nice mixture of decent food, shields, and commerce, with any additional growth presumably going into working some plains forests.

sooooo gets a point for correctly identifying the hill tile as plains. After thinking it over (and getting no better offer than a lousy peanut), I'm voting for old Burgundy.

Darrell

sooooo · May 13, 2009, 15:32

This is more exciting than the current war! Just over 2 hours to go and the voting is:

Old Burgundy:
mostly_harmless
sooooo
Dreylin
Zeviz
ruff_hi
Kodii
EDIT: Darrelljs

New Burgundy:
T-hawk
Sullla
MyOtherCar
Swiss Pauli
Sunrise089
regoarrarr
Kylearan

That's 7-6 in favour of New Burgundy. I don't think I can handle the excitement

.

EDIT: It's now 7-7! Someone email Sirian and ask him what he thinks