Ministry of Imperial Expansion - 2590 BC

[Jonny]

Hello from Jonny, your new Minister of Imperial Expansion.

This thread the place for all questions, comments, complaints, ideas, suggestions, etc. concerning the Ministry of Imperial Expansion. No spam, please.

The poll in this thread concerns the city sites proposed in "Case Pink." They are two good possibilities for city sites, offering low corruption and maximize use of our grassland. So, I am asking you if we should build there. The picture attached at the end of this post shows the two possible city sites. The red and blue dots indicate the city sites themselves, while the red and blue lines around them indicate beneficial squares that they will be able to work. This is an offical poll.

Question: Should we build cities at the sites proposed in "Case Pink?"

Options: Build cities at both sites, build at red site only, build at blue site, build at neither site.

Duration: 3 days.

One note: I will be on vacation over the next week. (Jun 30-Jul 7.) Although I will have Internet access there, I probably won't use it much, if at all. I will take care of any things that may need my attention when I come back. So, don't be worried if you don't see me much.

[notyoueither]

Yes to both.

Just a note though. Blue city could go 1 square further NE. That would make it a more viable long term site due to it being on the coast and having more 'unique' squares available. It would still be able to use 2 tiles of the Apolyton plain.

It would also be built 1 turn quicker with a settler from Banana HQ.

[Spiffor]

I feel Red City should be built one tile NW of its current location. This way, it would have a river in its immediate surroundings, and will still have 2 grasslands in its radius by the time it expands to 2.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I feel Red City should be built one tile NW of its current location. This way, it would have a river in its immediate surroundings, and will still have 2 grasslands in its radius by the time it expands to 2.

If we're going to use 'Red City' for our Archer army buildup, then we won't be able to make it expand to radius size 2 for some time, and until then, it will be fairly useless.

[notyoueither]

I would leave Red where it is. For at least 2 reasons.

1. It will have access to more of the Apolyton plains.

2. With the capitol stuck at the end of a peninsula, it might be better to use a 3 spacing for cities to maximize the number of less corrupt cities.

[kring]

A problem with this poll is that it doesn't offer the option of which city to build first. Unless you are pumping out 2 settlers on the same turn, or real close together, then which one to build first? It may or may not matter, but it would have avoided another poll if the both option wins.

[spicytimothy]

i'm not that gd at playing Civ3... but y build them so close??? it'll just overlap the city radii... i think u should build the third city far far off over to the Dyes that i saw in the bigger pic in the other thread...

spicytimothy

[Harovan]

Build both. First the Red, where it is. Then the Blue. Its location has yet to be discussed.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by spicytimothy
i'm not that gd at playing Civ3... but y build them so close??? it'll just overlap the city radii... i think u should build the third city far far off over to the Dyes that i saw in the bigger pic in the other thread...

The reason we want to build them so close is because of short-term advantages we couldn't get in the long run. We want to be able to use the good land (i.e. NOT jungle) with our new cities so we can produce Archers in quantity for our attack. If we build far off the problems short-term are that: 1: corruption and waste would cripple the city, and 2: the cities would produce next to nothing in the first place in the order of food and production, which would make them useless for some time.

Needless to say, not a good thing to do if you plan on going to war.

[Jonny]

IMO, we should build at the red city first. It will immedately have access to a mined grassland/shield tile, and will be much more productive. Then, we will build at the blue site second.

[jordie]

Originally posted by Jonny
IMO, we should build at the red city first. It will immedately have access to a mined grassland/shield tile, and will be much more productive. Then, we will build at the blue site second.

I think that is the way to go. Although I agree with the blue city being 1 tile NE.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Build the Red city right where it is.

As for the blue city, as NYE suggested, move it one tile NE. This gives us another coastal city (always nice), still gives it access to tiles on the Apolytonian Lowlands, and can be reached in the same amount of time as the old Blue site from Apolytonia.

Later on, as Tim suggested, build near the unclaimed dyes (if the Yanks haven't already claimed them )

[Spiffor]

I meant, we should move Red city one tile to NW, because it will have 2 grasslands by the time its population expands to 2, which will only take 10 turns. I know we won't culture-expand it, that's why I think it would be better to place it in such a way that its immediate radius encompasses river tiles.

Red city will probably never have more than 3 population (except if we decide to keep it, once Case : Pink is over) , and enough jungle shall be cleared by the time this 3 population comes. If Red City is only size 3, I don't see how "having more of Apolytonia plains" matters.

Placing Red City NW of its current location will also allow us to gain 1 more tile in direction of the French, meaning one less jungle tile to road.

Except corruption problem (but I'm almost sure we won't suffer from corruption in our second town 5 tiles from our capital, because the map is huge), I don't see any valid point of keeping Red City where it is.

You'll probably say "the polls say so, and the polls are God". But you'll notice that a ready to use project is easily accepted by people, who feel they don't have the ability to discuss it. I'm not sure if NYE and SirRalph pondered the position of Red City as much as I did. I'm curious to hear their feedback about my opinion.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I meant, we should move Red city one tile to NW, because it will have 2 grasslands by the time its population expands to 2, which will only take 10 turns.

If we move it 1 tile NW (closer to the river), it will have access to only 1 unshielded grassland. I don't know where you take the second from.

[Spiffor]

The worker who is currently clearing the jungle, and who will be done in 8 turns, when Red City is founded (original location), or 1 turn before (my location).