Turn 18

[Conqueror]

Originally posted by DeepO
Euh... conqueror... you might want to check the thread entitled 'city placement proposal'

Maybe it's good to move the discussion on where to spend our Christmas-gift-coupon to there

DeepO

Ah, yes, did read this first, commented there now

[Theseus]

WOO-HOO!!!

"... and a Settler in a pear tree!"

[DeepO]

Well... not discussing where the settler should be, but something else which more or less is in order: What if we would wait with settling our christmass gift until we build the first regular settler? I know, faster cities are better of course, but if the other teams see we cash in this gift, and don't drop in population, they might grow envious... if it only differs one or two turns, I would hold a bit. After our fourth city, other teams can't read the F11 screen good anyhow.

DeepO

[Theseus]

Very subtle thinking...

But does it matter?

[DeepO]

I don't know... just exploring possibilities here to let the others believe were just decent, and not doing superbly

DeepO

[Arrian]

I say we settle as soon as we get the settler where we want it. Whether that is next turn, or a couple down the road depends. Playing mind games with the opposition isn't worth delaying building our 2nd city.

I'm now really happy we built extra warriors, because we can divert one to garrison the new city *if* we build it kinda far from EotS (such that it will be a 1-shield city for a little while, and vunerable to barb attack).

-Arrian

[Shiber]

I'm not sure what kind of an effect this would have. If the other teams notice that we got a settler from a goody hut it could either make them see us as an ally worth considering, or as an adversary worth ganging up against. However, IMHO most chances are that they'll say "ahh, what the heck" and don't mind this.

[Randolph]

I say build the city ASAP. Good thinking DeepO, but I just don't think that level of paranoia is really necessary at this stage of the game.

[DeepO]

So far everyone agrees, including me. Just think of it as a thought experiment

DeepO

[Randolph]

Originally posted by DeepO
So far everyone agrees, including me. Just think of it as a thought experiment

DeepO

oh sure, try to make it sound like you didn't want to do it all along..

[Theseus]

I'm not sure if this thought belongs here (or any of a half dozen other threads), but what the heck...

RADICAL CHANGE AHEAD:

Given our isolated start, what if we focus HEAVILY on Settlers / Workers. Build the next two towns on the gold tile and 3 tiles north of EotS, and irrigate the heck out of the floodplains. Get up to 10-11 towns ASAP, and then deal with everything else. Jesus, with 2 luxuries and cheap temples, we'd then be an economic / production powerhouse.

I'd still want to get 1-2 WCs and maybe 1-2 Warriors out there for exploration, but otherwise play a hardcore REX strategy.

Thoughts?

[DeepO]

I'm not sure this would be a radical change, Theseus. So far we are almost hardcore rexing already, and I don't think that while we haven't met anyone we are going to build lots of troops. I'm not sure if we need to really go for superefficient rexing and nothing else, but as long as it is more or less balanced (e.g. with possible settlerpumps, which original REX didn't had), I'm all for it.

For instance, I still think that building a barracks now is not needed, and if we need to spend shields while waiting for a pop-increase, I'd build a temple. Also, maybe we should reconsider wonderbuilding: the pyramids seem a very good choice for our (relative?) isolation. If only they didn't trigger our GA...

DeepO

[Theseus]

OK, so not so radical. I like the direction you're going though... while I almost never build Pyramids, a Temple (and Granary?) in EotS, plus connecting the spices, could be pretty powerful.

And I agree, it's looking like Barracks would be a waste.

Re your thought experiment: If we made the gold tile the site of the 2nd town, and sent the Settler from EotS north to the floodplains site, we really would lose very little production, and "veil" our activities. I've actually done a 360 on this, and think it might be a good idea.

[DeepO]

You've done a 360? don't get dizzy, only a 180 would be in my direction again

I'm not sure... if it wastes too much, I wouldn't do it. but if I get it right, we'll drop in pop (and likely from the F11 screens of the other teams) in 5 turns, we should wait at least so long, and preferably one turn longer to settle to have any effect. I still think it a worthy thought experiment, and if we are going to focus on rexing, it might even get a better deal. But still... we would lose 2 or 3 turns on a possible city.

As to putting the city 2 tiles North at the floodplain: that tile certainly is a better tile when it comes to possible growth, but we should agree that we lose a floodplain on doing it. So far I liked that we didn't need to waste any special tiles... a irr fp + a mined desert is a better then a irr desert and a hill

DeepO

[Theseus]

Originally posted by DeepO
You've done a 360? don't get dizzy, only a 180 would be in my direction again

I was reading the AU PTW Mod thread, and DID get dizzy!

So we lose, what, 6 food and 3 trade? Whereas we pick up an extra 6 trade from settling the gold tile earlier.

And, btw, I'm liking that gold tile more and more... build a temple there from the get-go, and we can connect / work the spice hill ASAP.