Short Term -v- Mid Term
The ST city -v- the BM city
It seems to me that this kerfuffle is over focus, or attention span. Should the decision be based on short term considerations or longer term benefits??
ST has chided my site choice because it will delay camels getting to Saragossa. By one turn. But is that an unacceptable delay?? Do we now have in place a large number of boats to service an unending supply of camels?? No, we do not. Furthermore, the delay becomes nonexistent after 8 turns of road building. (Plains, 71,11; and trees, 69,11) Roads that I pointed out are the optimal path for a "road bonus" between Salamanca and the SSC (which has the additional advantage of making the BM city a "station" on that path, limiting the need for some 'difficult' roads further along the way).
After those 8 turns of road building, a camel standing on the Grapes will need 4 movement points to reach Salamanca, by either way. Very quickly, long before discovering Bridge Building, the delay argument is mooted. So, the short term argument is not very strong. But, look at the mid term consequences of building on plains instead of grass.
While building on plains gives an extra arrow, it will make it impossible for the ST city to both grow and support a Settler, once we become a Republic. Settlers are going to be a continuing need, for roads, irrigation, to prepare the SSC for sustainable growth, and of course, for more cities. To me, having a more healthy city is more important.
At some point, the longer term, both cities will require irrigating plains to continue growing. To make the 'road' to Saragossa more functional, the next player should think about building on one of those sites.
Which brings me to my ongoing question...Who's next!!
Monk
The ST city -v- the BM city
It seems to me that this kerfuffle is over focus, or attention span. Should the decision be based on short term considerations or longer term benefits??
ST has chided my site choice because it will delay camels getting to Saragossa. By one turn. But is that an unacceptable delay?? Do we now have in place a large number of boats to service an unending supply of camels?? No, we do not. Furthermore, the delay becomes nonexistent after 8 turns of road building. (Plains, 71,11; and trees, 69,11) Roads that I pointed out are the optimal path for a "road bonus" between Salamanca and the SSC (which has the additional advantage of making the BM city a "station" on that path, limiting the need for some 'difficult' roads further along the way).
After those 8 turns of road building, a camel standing on the Grapes will need 4 movement points to reach Salamanca, by either way. Very quickly, long before discovering Bridge Building, the delay argument is mooted. So, the short term argument is not very strong. But, look at the mid term consequences of building on plains instead of grass.
While building on plains gives an extra arrow, it will make it impossible for the ST city to both grow and support a Settler, once we become a Republic. Settlers are going to be a continuing need, for roads, irrigation, to prepare the SSC for sustainable growth, and of course, for more cities. To me, having a more healthy city is more important.
At some point, the longer term, both cities will require irrigating plains to continue growing. To make the 'road' to Saragossa more functional, the next player should think about building on one of those sites.
Which brings me to my ongoing question...Who's next!!
Monk
Comment