Minister of Imperial Expansion Campaign Thread

[atawa]

We have another contender

[Spiffor]

I have a question for our candidates :
What do you think of cities in jungles/deserts/tundras ? Would you grab them in the early game, hopin for later resources, or will you let the AI settle on them, hoping to take it later, when resources are discovered ?

[atawa]

Being a dedicated explorer, I would find any possible resources well before AI does.

As it slows us down I would suggest not build on them untill we have our core established and can mis the production/growth.

In the meantime defend the spot (if worthwhile) against all intruders.

[Kuciwalker]

I vote for whoever expands most in the early age.

[Jonny]

I will build cities in jungles/desert/tundra after all the good city spots are taken, so if a resource appears there, we can get it, and so the AI does not build there.

[Chandragupta]

whoops... i didnt see the pre-election thread, so now there are two displays of my views for the position of Minister of Imperial Expansion, my bad... anyway, here it is again:

Obviously one would want rapid early expansion, but there's more to Imperial Expansion. Preventing other (esp more powerful) civs from setting up encleves in the middle of a hole in an empire is critical, because not only would it be embarassing to a nation, but strategicly unsound as well. Also a civ needs resources badly therefore cities placed to absorb a desert might seem wasteful early on but might be valuable for oil later on.

Chandragupta's empire spanned the lands from northern Afghanistan to the Bay of Bengal, and if I am elected I will aid in the creation of one just as glorious. (i.e., vote for me!)

[civman2000]

Jonny. I assume from your post that you will be wiling to build a city 2 squares away from an enemy city to take a resource via culture blitz (one oif my favorite strategies, though it can make it pretty crowded and lead to corruption later...)

[Jonny]

Originally posted by civman2000
Jonny. I assume from your post that you will be wiling to build a city 2 squares away from an enemy city to take a resource via culture blitz (one oif my favorite strategies, though it can make it pretty crowded and lead to corruption later...)

Of course! This is one of my favorite strategies too.

[Timeline]

Obviously one would want rapid early expansion, but there's more to Imperial Expansion. Preventing other (esp more powerful) civs from setting up encleves in the middle of a hole in an empire is critical, because not only would it be embarassing to a nation, but strategicly unsound as well.

I agree, it is most unwise to leave land inside your civ uninhabited as the AI will come up and plant a city right where it is guaranteed to be most annoying .

Steady outward expansion is key, and I have stated many times before that I do not believe in wasting good terrain at home out of greed to form cities far away (which will most likely be useless because of corruption anyway). As Imperial Expansion Minister, I will make sure that terrain in our land is not wasted or made unusable. The only time I would support sending a settler out of our expansion sphere is if there were a much needed luxury resource, or strategic resource we don't have.

Gold mines are a good thing as I mentioned in another thread, because they give outstanding boosts to our science and commerce. I believe getting all the gold in our area is important, and will do every thing I can to make sure it is used properly.

Also a civ needs resources badly therefore cities placed to absorb a desert might seem wasteful early on but might be valuable for oil later on.

This is where I have to disagree. Usually early in the game, there are many better spots to colonize and develop than deserts. By electing me, you would be electing someone who will go for the best and choice spots first. I mean, if there are not any better spots to colonize than deserts, I will, lol, but building starving cities in deserts, just hoping that maybe there will be a good resource at the exact spot you planted a city, is not practical.

by the way, good luck to all the participants

[Chandragupta]

and the debate continues... of course i wouldnt take over a desert instead of an ideal spot simply in the vain hope that it might contain goodies for later. On a huge map with 16 civs (worst case scenario), an early victory will likely be impossible, so long-term strategic considerations must be taken into account asap.

Also, i would like to prevent that annoying circumstance that comes up when you have corrupt, tiny, and widespread cities all accross the world with little to no hope of reducing the corruption and waste with a forbidden palace.

Therefore, rather than going for a land-scramble for tiny islands and random sites, i would like to advocate, after the initial fencing-in of our democratic empire by other civs, that we send out large and well defended expeditions. Rather than a trickle of settlers heading to the corners of the earth i would like to see great waves of Apolytonians spreading out in an orderly fashion over vast tracts of land.

Good luck to everyone else.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
DO any of you support cities being close together? I would vote for that person. Jonny appears to be out in my view.

Yes, I do support overlapping cities. Just to throw out a guess, and keep in mind it depends on terrain, but I could see overlapping by about 6 squares (max) in a grassland/plain area, making for 14 usable. I support this method so that excessive amounts of terrain do not go unused when our cities hit the 12 pop limit until sanitation.

Unlike my competitor Jonny, who stated and I quote: “I plan to leave very little overlap.”, I do not care for size 20+ cities (which leaving little overlap tends to lead to). All they leave you with are a bunch of unhappy citizens and useless specialists. I VALUE the benefits of mildly overlapping cities and appreciate it’s outstanding ability for early-mid game economic benefits.

[Jonny]

Originally posted by Timeline
Yes, I do support overlapping cities. Just to throw out a guess, and keep in mind it depends on terrain, but I could see overlapping by about 6 squares (max) in a grassland/plain area, making for 14 usable. I support this method so that excessive amounts of terrain do not go unused when our cities hit the 12 pop limit until sanitation.

Unlike my competitor Jonny, who stated and I quote: “I plan to leave very little overlap.”, I do not care for size 20+ cities (which leaving little overlap tends to lead to). All they leave you with are a bunch of unhappy citizens and useless specialists. I VALUE the benefits of mildly overlapping cities and appreciate it’s outstanding ability for early-mid game economic benefits.

Here's my counter-point.

First, not overlapping cities usually means we get more territory, territory other Civs do not get. More land would make us more powerful over time and other civs less powerful, AND it wouldn't get too crowded in the late-game.

Second, it is true that this could result in 20+ cities later on. But, as I said, with bigger cities, more land, and more commerce, we will be able to pay for happiness improvments and use some commerce for happiness. Also, the specialists got above size 20 can be useful for some extra cash or science. (A single one doesn't give much, but they can add up with a lot of 20+ cities.)

Finally, I said I will try to leave little overlap (earlier in this thread), not eliminate it altogether. Is there a great difference between little overlap and "mildly overlapping," as Timeline said?

P.S.: Vote for me!

[Spiffor]

Timeline, Jonny :
I'm very happy we have a debate here. When I was voting, my voice didn't just go to a random person, but to a choice of expansion. Keep up the debate !

[Timeline]

First, not overlapping cities usually means we get more territory, territory other Civs do not get. More land would make us more powerful over time and other civs less powerful, AND it wouldn't get too crowded in the late-game.

Yes, but spreading cities farther apart means more corruption, and corruption really takes a hit on the economy early in the game when you have cities spread out too far apart (no overlap) as opposed to carefully managed cities (ie most bang for your buck - my way).

Close colonization doesn’t mean losing land. If elected, building an empire as large (or larger) than anyone els will be a top priority. Well placed cities can churn out settlers, and I would petition to the city planner and president that such be built (in order to secure our world dominance). In games I play on monarch, I commonly expand to a size either equal or larger than the AI in size (large/huge, least amount of water, and archipelago maps), and usually dominate in score from early on. This is without conquest or cultural acquisition (in one game a got a size 12 city from China from culture).

Second, it is true that this could result in 20+ cities later on. But, as I said, with bigger cities, more land, and more commerce, we will be able to pay for happiness improvments and use some commerce for happiness.

Am I correct in assuming that you are talking about raising the luxery slider to cover unhappiness?! I don’t think the science buffs will like that at all....

Size 20+ cities don’t usually make their worth vs the cost of having the citz in them: A Specialist collecting 1 gold/beaker per turn in a 20+ city is simply not as effective as one collecting 3 gold/beaker per turn (like off a water tile) in a -21 size.

All this being said, I am not a pack-em-in-there type player. As mentioned, I sometimes give Coastal or hill/mountain side cities their full 19/20 tiles so that they can feed themselves and work the deep water, or towering mountains, and lump their production into one city so they can pump out .......anything we please. HOWEVER, I am a strong opposer to 20+ pop size cities, and view somewhat close placement of cities as one means of countering this.

Finally, I said I will try to leave little overlap (earlier in this thread), not eliminate it altogether. Is there a great difference between little overlap and "mildly overlapping," as Timeline said?

Because I understand the benefits of when it works and when it don’t. So it may be done a “little” or a “lot”, depending on terrain, but I will do it with mildness, that is: not more than practical, necessary.

By the way, there is something els I would like to mention. Jonny has made it a point to say he will listen to the people and what they have to say. I want to say, should I be elected for this position, I will make informing and listening to the people my TOP and NUMBER 1 Priority as Imperial Expansion Minister. By voting for me, you are voting for someone who will post detailed information and maps of our expansion area, along with suggestions and remarks, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE PEOPLE, the Final say in all matters. Elect me, and I will be active in getting the people involved, and everyone will have a say.

Vote Timeline for Expansion Minister NOW! *points finger*.......you can’t afford not to.

(I am going to bed now guys, I can’t hardly keep my eyes open)

[Chandragupta]

Meant in good humor :

How many of us out there are amongst the peasantry? I would imagine that at least a quarter if not half of us citizens are of the rank of settler! There must be a representative of the people in the cabinet, and, at least for the time being, I am of the lowly rank of settler! The two leading candidates are both of the lesser nobility as a warlord or prince, and this IS a democracy after all, so ought not the common populous be represented?

Back to serious, at any rate I just felt that some polite satire of the present situation was in order. Now, at the risk of turning this into a rant-length post, i will proceed to address the pertinent issues...

Overlapping: Very intriguing viewpoints from everyone so far. I feel that in regard to our own cities, that overlapping in food distribution is all right, however production sources ought not be overlapped to give all cities maximum prod-for-pop ratio. Near to other civs, busting the border is fine by me since we can absorb nearby cities via culture (I've done the same as Timeline, just vs Japan) and we can use towns as moneymaking border forts.

And as for the people? Well, this is a democratic empire after all, and I the power of the ministers depends on you, so you will have sway with all of us. (also, see above )
Good luck to all ministerial candidates, this game rocks and it hasnt started yet!
Yet again i agree with Timeline, sleep is good, so i'm out...
(Vote for me! )