All pretty good sites except maybe 7. The question is rather the loss in production outbalances its closeness and military value.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Official Imperial expansion proposals for new city sites (925BC)
Collapse
X
-
Est-ce que tu as vu une baleine avec un queue taché?
If you don't feel the slightist bit joyful seeing the Iraqis dancing in the street, then you are lost to the radical left. If you don't feel the slightest bit bad that we had to use force to do this, then you are lost to the radical right.
-
I like the city 7 location. Munich is too far in to what should be our jungle, it needs to be squeezed to our side. Before that squeeze hapens, however, we should make sure that we don't loose the iron road to a German cultural expansion. Even if city 7 will never amount to anything, we can always abandon it when Munich flips and move its 2 population to a city that needs it.
Comment
-
I am about to agree with Sir Ralph.Take notice, 'cause I tend to disagree with him a lot more than I should.
5, 6 and 7 are certainly the priority city sites, particularly if we are even contemplating a war against France or anyone else. The whole issue with building these cities is to ensure we get that Iron and keep AI settlements away from the area. 1 however, either as proposed or 1 square SE as I suggested, would be in range of Iron also, and this makes me believe that our top priorites should be 5, 6, 7 and 1. If we get 1, we will have two Iron resources - a little redundant yes, but dare we risk losing Iron? Furthermore, 1 would be able to grow as quickly as we need it to (flood plains), forming perhaps the most valuable city site proposed, and IMO the most important city-to-be in the land we currently have.
Comment
-
7 is strategically important, we need a road to preserve the iron in Ubergorsk, and we can build it fast due to its proximity to our other cities.
6 & 5 are also important to isolate Munich and stop German /Persian westward expansion
1 is good too, but that iron source could also pose a problem i.e, protecting the road leading to it, making 2 important if we get 1.
Excellent work Will.Note: the Law Offices of jdjdjd are temporarily closed.
"Next time I say something like 'lets go to Bolivia', lets go to Bolivia"
Comment
-
I have been advocating site 1 for several days now, so it definitelly gets my vote for our next city. I think site 7 would be good to help keep the road to Ubergorsk open. The other sites are either in hard to defend sites, or in not very productive ones.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
I will be taking the place of Sir Ralph in the next chat since he wont be able to make it. I have suggestions to build at sites 5, 6, and 7. But in the last few turns the Persians have set up a city near Site 6, so I think that it may have to be moved one square from where it is on the map.
Comment
-
Regarding concerns that jungle cities will be unproductive for awhile, let me point out that with our industrious-production advantage, we should be able to grow them faster than Germany can build up Munich, if we commit workers. The fact that the eastern sites are buried in the jungle actually works to our advantage.aka, Unique Unit
Wielder of Weapons of Mass Distraction
Comment
-
Originally posted by BigRed515
iron road to a German cultural expansion. Even if city 7 will never amount to anything, we can always abandon it when Munich flips and move its 2 population to a city that needs it.Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Comment
-
ah, i see, abandon the old-fashioned way... gotcha! makes sense.
I like all the locations. I would prioritize them in terms of strategic importance, and then also assess how likely it is another civ will get there first.
A little cramped, but at this size, who cares? Perhaps in the future we can shift it. Or the jungle->grassland in the future will make it easy to sustain growth even in cramped cities.Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Comment
-
I'm def. for city 1 -- it's an unoccupied bit of land with good surrounding squares and strategic importance -- what else is there to want?
The other ones all seem very close to other cities -- as a player, I generally leave my cities far apart, but we clearly need as many cities as possible, and the AI's REX tendancies will mean that either we've got cities there or they will, so...
Should we complete these cities, however, I'd suggest that all build temples once basic defensive units are in place, with special emphisis on culture enhancements in cities two, three, and seven (as these are exceptionally close to foreign cities).
-- adaMadaCiv 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
Comment
-
My prefered order would be 6,5,4,2. That will give us a ring around our area. I like the northern cities too, but would wait till after our war with america since they could be very vulnerable. City 7 I am alittle hesistant about, but if we had finished the rest that city could be built. since we have 2 settler on the table I say 6,5 or 5,4 if 6 not possible due to persians.
AggieThe 5th President, 2nd SMC and 8th VP in the Civ3 Demogame. Also proud member of the GOW team in the PTW game. Peace through superior firepower.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aggie
My prefered order would be 6,5,4,2. That will give us a ring around our area. I like the northern cities too, but would wait till after our war with america since they could be very vulnerable. City 7 I am alittle hesistant about, but if we had finished the rest that city could be built. since we have 2 settler on the table I say 6,5 or 5,4 if 6 not possible due to persians.
Aggie. We crushed 'em and took a few cities. Unless another one's planned for sometime soon -- I can't really keep up with everything that's going on
. Wayy to many people posting wayy to fast, lol.
-- adaMadaCiv 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Captain
do we get the 2 pop back from an abandon city? I wasn't sure. in 1.21 I thought you didn't get anything - this to prevent from using settlers to instantly clear jungle.
It's important to build city 7 ASAP, people. We need to build up culture at its place by building a temple and library. Or do you wish the city ot flip to the Germans later? When culture squeezing, time matters as much as in warfare and pretty much in ever other situation in this game.
Comment
-
7 is very important. The most of any listed.
But, what about the unsettled land in the jungle near the capitol? Far less corrupt, and with industrious workers not too hard to clear.
I haven't read it all, but yes, it seems the resettlement of some of the cities may fit a better grid in the long run. Just keep the planned moves building workers or spear in the mean time until the move can be carried out.
Also, after France the map changes. The French cities might be taken into account for long range plans.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
Comment