Minister of Imperial Expansion campaign thread

[Robber Baron]

So Ralph and Will:
Do you favor an oscillating war strategy, and a pruning of our first enemy?
Or a total war, right out of the box?
(I know Ralph has stated an opinion on this question in another thread, but I thought we'd migrate some of that discussion over here.)

[Will 5001]

I support a complete anihilation of the Americans, as they seem to have the best land in the area, then we would have a period where we would consolidate and expand (hence the need for a Minister of Imperial expansion) and then a war against the French where we could let them retain some independence, and could serve us as our servants. I believe that we have been challanged to have a baptism of fire if we are going to win. However, much of this discussion is on the SMC's ground!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I am not. Independent means, there is no party I am in .

IND scard me, coula been industrial

[Epistax]

heh maybe trip should have kept it at (I)

i'd run for a post with "ASS" or "***" in there and let people think of something themselves.

[notyoueither]

Will, Are you committed to zero (or near) overlap?

What would you think if I told you that we can fit 4 rings of productive cities in a 16 tile radius using 3 tile gaps, but only 3 rings in a 15 tile radius using 4 tile gaps.

3 spacing allows most cities to exceed 20 population in the long haul. It also closes the gaps between your cities as soon as you build the new one (the borders link automatically to any cities within 4 tiles). Therefore, you gain control of more territory for every city built and do not have to worry about the AI sneaking into the middle of your empire.

However, the strongest argument for 3 tile spacing would have to remain the much larger number of minimally corrupt cities that can be gained. It would be on the order of 33% more (or there abouts).

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by UberKruX


IND scard me, coula been industrial

There you see...
These f"#¤in' abbrevations!
They scare the hell outta me...

[Jonny]

ATTENTION: I will be running for a second term as Imperial Expansion minister. I will be a candidate for the DIA again.

Why should you vote for me to be your new IE minister?

Firstly, I strive to place cities in positions that will make them efficent and productive, however that can be done.

Secondly, I have more experience as IE minister than any other candidate, having served 1 term. I was also deputy IE minister under Timeline.

Third, I listen to the people. I listen to their opinions, and act accordingly. If I propose a plan, and people don't like it, I'll listen to their ideas and suggestions to change it.

Finally, I promise that my decisions will NOT be based on party politics. For example, I highly supported Case Pink, even though it was highly supported by the UFC. I am part of the DIA, not the UFC.

So remember, vote for Jonny, the best choice for Apolytonia!

[Ninot]

rofl..

i JUST read the entire thread looking for Johnny, and then he posts once i close the window.

[Harovan]

Robber Baron,

I see not much of a difference between pruning and wiping out. Almost every civ I prune, I wipe out at some point, namely when they are so poor, that they can't give me useful stuff anymore. However, I am strongly against wiping a civ out in the BCs. As long as a civ can supply me with 2-3 techs and 2-3 cities every 20 turns, I would be a fool if I slaughtered that fat cow.

Notyoueither,

Good to see you here. Yes, 3-spacing has certain benefits. First, as you told, I can build more cities close to my capital and benefit from the lower distance generated corruption. Second, smaller cities are happier cities, they can easier been kept in WLTKD, without needing much improvements. This is important in the levels above Monarch (where we happen to play), because it's usually hard to build the Sistine Chapel and/or Bachs with no leader at hand. Third, smaller cities produce less pollution. Fourth, they don't tend to waste shields. A size-20 city usually yields only about 80 shields and builds a tank in 2 turns, wasting 60 shields. A size 12-15 city, giving net 50 shields, also builds a tank in 2 turns, but wastes nothing. And last not least, they don't tend to fill up with useless specialists in the later game.

But cities without overlap also have their benefits. In the late game they can, if built well-placed and fully developed, have an absolute killer production to build spaceship parts or wonders. Look alone at my IW city from the Minitourney III in the Strategy forum (picture below). It produces a net of 150 shields (w/o GA). It can feed only 19 citizens, even with railroaded irrigation, and only this prevents it from being ideal. It is, by the way, a city I got by pruning in the early game (see the name Osaka for a Chinese city).

So how to place cities? The best solution seems to be in the middle. I tend to build cities 3-spaced around my Palace. This grants me a good start. Usually, my FP I build in a former AI capital, because it is mostly a great city site. Since the AI builds with low overlap, I continue this style and thus get a coreland with powerhouse cities. I call this the Policy of Two Centers. One, tighter packed, gives in the late game lots of cities, able to build a tank in 2 turns. The second gives power cities for spaceship parts and wonders.

[JSeeds]

Good stuff Ralph!
You've got my vote.

[Jonny]

Answers to some questions asked:

Robber Baron:
I support wiping the Americans down to 1 city and getting all their techs and money (or as much as we can get from them) for peace. Then annhilate them outright. After that, we take a break from war. We then do some peaceful expansion by building several new cities, while building up and healing military at the same time. Then, go on to the next civ (probably French) and repeat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYE:
I don't neccesarily support near-zero overlap. I support whatever makes our cities most productive and efficent. For example, the cities in Case Pink were placed closer together than I might build in other situations, but there was a good reason for this - the cities could get the most out of the grasslands. This made them more productive and efficent in the long run. So, if you told me that we can fit 4 rings of productive cities in a 16 tile radius using 3 tile gaps, but only 3 rings in a 15 tile radius using 4 tile gaps, I'd say use the 3 tile gaps.

[star mouse]

City placement should vary according to terrain. Where the terrain allows for large cities, a distant spacing will allow the city to grow large. Where the terrain is more marginal, a closer spacing will allow all the tiles to be worked, depending on how big the city can get.

Example: Grassland & Hill Terrain

Spacing the cities so each city has about 18 tiles to itself will make this city a large one in the late game. Every grassland square should be mined. A few squares should be irrigated to support the population on the hills and mountains.

Example: Tundra terrain

Packing the cities fairly tightly here will allow you to utilise this marginal terrain effectively. If each tundra city had only nine squares to itself, you will gain more than if you allowed each city to have 20 squares. A tundra city that only grows to a size of 4 or 5 shouldn't hoard 20 tiles to itself because you will never use them. Pack them in close, build barracks and a temple, and have these little cities produce nothing but military units throughout the game.

Apolytonia is surrounded by jungle. For jungle, I like to found my jungle cities with the future in mind. One day, that jungle will be gone, and the sooner it's gone the better you will be. Found the jungle cities, and have these cities build workers, a temple, and a couple of cheap military units to protect the workers. Get to work clearing that jungle. I like to use what I call the "Amish" technique - have your workers all work together on the same city to get it cleared as fast as possible in one huge "roof raising". Later, when you're done with the workers, have them join the cities again, and you'll get some great cities where the jungle once was.

[Will 5001]

So that city was placed by the AI Ralph?

Notyoueither- This strategy requires good land close together, at the moment this may be hard to accomplish, since the war with america will most likely take up most of the next term. In the long term however this all depends on how we are going to win the game, if we decide that we want to win by military conquest then we should set up most of our cities in this way, since we will need to mass produce military uinits and we will have a large empire and we will need to control corruption.


However if we go for a science victory we will need more very productive cities so that spaceship parts can be manufactured very quickly and science improvements built quickly in the same way, so the cities will need maximum growth and maximum production.


It has to be said that in this situation cities should be built on prime land and the nearest city should be far away so that it also has very good land, the likleihood that two prime city building cities will be so close together in a ring is next to nothing, but for a military conquest we do not need perfect cities, we just need them to be productive enough to churn out units and less structures than we would require in a science victory.


It is an interesting concept but as I said I will cooperate with the citizens and ministers to provide the best citiespossible for the direction we want to take as one setup of cities will not do for all victories, especially at this level.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Will 5001
So that city was placed by the AI Ralph?

Yes, if I said it, it must be so. But if I had built the other cities tight around it, it could not flourish like this. Well, one city in the south is only 3 spaces apart, but it is a gap filler that was never intended to grow above size 12. It has no food surplus.

[Papa Chubby]

I have one question before I vote. At what point will you stop supporting the aggressive expansion proposed by Uberkraux and the Hawks, and start supporting an expansion that is more domestically based (utilising our own settlers). Will it be after we have taken out the Americans, or the Americans and French or are you just as with gaining mostly AI cities through military aquisition.