City Planner Campaign thread

[Harovan]

This thread is designed for the City Planner Campaign.

Here is my application:

I will take care of well placed cities, take in account rivers and food resources. In my games I use to place cities tight, but since this is not so popular, I will use city placements between 3 and 5 tiles apart, depending on terrain and I will listen to popular demand. I will do my best to make the cities easy to defend, and will use map properties like chokepoints and "Panama" type tiles. Of course, I also will put high priority to secure strategic resources and luxuries.

Your questions are welcome.

[civman2000]

um...city placement is the job of the imperial expansion advisor. The city planner decides what to build in the cities.

[Harovan]

In the "Ministers posts" thread I made the proposal to unite the City planning with Emperial expansion. The only one who can really take care, what the cities build, is the President, and he shall listen to the demands of the other ministers, to decide whether to build units (military), science improvements (science) etc.

[Immortal Wombat]

I'll do a brilliant job until Industrialisation, and then limit production to 4 per city.

[Timeline]

Well, we need to decide if city planner/imperial expansion ministers will be separate or merged. This will effect me greatly as I am in competition for the Imperial Expansion Minister position.

At this time I just want to say, I feel that I would be a superior candidate for a city planner/expansion officer, this is why:

Placing cities tightly can really inhibit growth once Sanitation has been discovered. Sir Ralph has stated that he usually places cities tight, but will not do so because it is not popular. As someone who has spent his games playing a pack-em-in-there city placement style, do you really want Ralph experimenting with proper city placement in our demo game? I am someone who has always taken much care in placing my cities, and I do not conform to any rigid patterns or grids (Ralph: I will use city placements between 3 and 5 tiles apart) but rather I take our Empire’s current goals and situation into account.

For example:

In the early game we will need to advance in technology quickly, in order to posses a respectable military and obtain decent government. For me, getting out of despotism is always the number 1 priority. Now, to help us do this quickly, I understand the importance of STRATEGIC RESOURCES like Gold. Gold is the life blood of any despotic nation, it makes a HUGE difference on science production rates. As your Expansion/City Minister, I will pledge to fully expliot our region and get our science moving along quickly.

I view corruption as a dirty scourge, and I relize that poorly placed cities (too far away) are useless to our empire. I promise I will develop our region to it’s full potential and will put forth every effort to get and keep our nation at the top of the score, EVEN IF WE DO NOT CONQUER OTHER NATIONS. Tight City expansion crushes any hope of this and long term development planning is key.

My common strategy in city placement is to value strategic resources while in despotism, because they do not suffer the restrictions of this government. Wheat and cows, next to the sea or hills will boost our commerce/production immensely. Also I highly value placing cities next to fresh water cause I know how PO’d the defense minister will get at seeing our nation building aqueducts when we could be building a military or our science minister when we could be building Libraries .

The bottom line is people, vote for Timeline as your City Planner/Imperial Expansion Minister, and put our nation in line for cities that stand the test of time

Thank you

[Captain]

Originally posted by Timeline
. As someone who has spent his games playing a pack-em-in-there city placement style, do you really want Ralph experimenting with proper city placement in our demo game? I am someone who has always taken much care in placing my cities, and I do not conform to any rigid patterns or grids (Ralph: I will use city placements between 3 and 5 tiles apart) but rather I take our Empire’s current goals and situation into account.

hmmm. experience does count. so far, so good.

Now, to help us do this quickly, I understand the importance of STRATEGIC RESOURCES like Gold.

danger! danger!
uh oh... gold is a bonus resource, not a strategic resource. I am not sure I want a minister who does not know the difference between the two.
Would the Candidate please explain the statement above?

I view corruption as a dirty scourge, and I relize that poorly placed cities (too far away) are useless to our empire. I promise I will develop our region to it’s full potential and will put forth every effort to get and keep our nation at the top of the score, EVEN IF WE DO NOT CONQUER OTHER NATIONS. Tight City expansion crushes any hope of this and long term development planning is key.

Corruption is a significant concern of mine. I am glad to see you are addressing this. However, sometimes there are strategic resources such as coal or iron that need to be within secure boundaries - meaning cities and not just colonies. What is your response?

[Captain]

Also, Sir Ralph has indicated he will take advantage of Panama type tiles and chokepoints.

Does timeline's platform include factoring in military and security concerns as well as developmental ones?

[Timeline]

danger! danger!

Crap lol, I'm afraid I pulled a bushism there, yea I was thinking bonus resources and typed strategic resources, my mistake and I apoligize. To re-word the sentence so it would make some sense:

I value bonus resources such as gold.

However, sometimes there are strategic resources such as coal or iron that need to be within secure boundaries - meaning cities and not just colonies. What is your response?

I wholeheartedly agree, in fact I have personally found very few situations where colonies prove useful to date. I agree in forming cities to control far-away STRATEGIC resources, I do not, however, feel such cities must be developed any further than is necessary. Positioning a small (1 or 2 unit) garrison and Rush-building a harbor for overseas colony-cities is acceptable, any more, is not.

Does timeline's platform include factoring in military and security concerns as well as developmental ones?

Yes sir! As a Captain you would know that Panama type tiles are a bear necessity for sea fearing civs. I highly value coastal cities (on archipelago maps) for forging strong naval superiority, and Panama tiles for ensuring flexibility and maneuverability of that navy.

Making cities for land chokepoints (between mountains and such)? Well, that I am not so hot on. When it comes to in-land development I do not believe security concerns (such as placing a city on a hill rather than on that grassland with a river) should outweigh long term economic growth. I think fortresses and strong in-city garrisons better serve the purpose of in-land security rather the placement of the cities themselves.

[Harovan]

Since certain "candidates" here prefer to run others down, even though they are obviously confused with the types of resources, let me clarify the following:

City placement plays an enormous role in the early game. Tight packing has clear benefits, because it lowers the corruption from distance to the capital. Further, in the early game a city needs only a few tiles to work though. Tight packing hinders the cities to grow later, that's true, but smaller cities are happier cities and produce less pollution. And in terrain with low food (deserts) you also can safely pack cities tight, because they won't grow big anyway, at least till Steam power. So instead of run people down, this "candidate" should rather learn how this game works.

As for experience: I play this game since it came to the market. I have experience with all kinds of city placement patterns, and know benefits and weak points of each of them.

I will not favor tight packing, but take in account the terrain. Anyway, the citizens decide, where the cities are placed. I make only proposals.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Tight packing has clear benefits, because it lowers the corruption from distance to the capital. Further, in the early game a city needs only a few tiles to work though. Tight packing hinders the cities to grow later, that's true, but smaller cities are happier cities and produce less pollution.

Sir Ralph has a good point here. Are you in favour of limiting city sizes due to the small value of specialists in comparison to the rising cost of unhappiness?

What about you Timeline? Do you favour cities>21?

Note:
As in any political campaign, expect a bit of roughness and maybe even smear tactics. However, I wouldn't worry too much. The mods are ever-watchful, are they not? Besides, running down others as you say, just might backfire on someone.

[punkbass2000]

I have no formal speech to make, but am willing to answer any questions.

[Inverse Icarus]

i would like to see each candidates ideas for how many units they will provide me with.

[punkbass2000]

depends on the situation

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Captain
Are you in favour of limiting city sizes due to the small value of specialists in comparison to the rising cost of unhappiness?

What about you Timeline? Do you favour cities>21?

I consider specialists to be useless and do not favour cities over size 20. Happiness matters, happy citizens give more score than content. And Cities of size 25+ grow into a serious problem in wars during democracy due to rampant growing war weariness. As I said, smaller cities are happier and better to handle in hard times.

About timeline, well, I don't know if I understand your question right... Do you mean timeline for city growth? That depends. Early in the game the cities will grow slowly, because their pop points will go into settlers, and other ministers may decide to poprush. I'm not against a reasonable poprush, but refuse to do it at all price. Later, I grow cities to their maximum. That means for me, to the "happiness limit". It also matters, that distant cities are more productive in WLT*D.

EDIT: eek, I just noticed a poster named "Timeline". Never mind .

About "rudeness"... no offense meant and taken. I know this is a political campaign, and mild hits are allowed .

[Captain]

Timeline is your rival for this position.

All else, good answers! this might be a really tight campaign. but who knows, I'm just one ordinary private citizen - who just happens to like asking lots of questions.