Tweet
First of all, I only consider this a proposal, to get us going on the subject. Please give all comments you think are worth mentioning, I'll try to adjust the proposal...
I mailed a screenshot to our e-mail address. Keep that closeby when reading the next things
(BTW, sorry for having such thin lines, I know they are hardly readable, but it was either that or a huge filesize)
With this proposal, it seems we more or less keep at ideal distance. To the North, I thought cities with 1 move in between them would be more critical than on the South (as we won't have any neighbours there). South, there can be bigger and smaller steps.
I tried to give each city 12 workable tiles (sometimes on the coast they have a few more, but there is not much to be done about that). Further, I tried to give all 6 workable landtiles (can be borrowed from a neighbouring city when we don't have aquaducts nor harbors).
I would suggest we take our hut-settler to either city 1 or 2, and for the settlers we are building take sites 3,4 and 6 (as they have bonus food). Further, city 11 would be a good one to settler early, and 8 or 10 to control barbs.
Specific city comments:
1: I know that moving it one tile would place it at the river, but that also gives one more desert tile, and one less flood plain.
2: Could also move 3, but we've got plenty of pure coast cities anyway
3: This city has too few tiles as drawn here, but that's only temporary: it should be better once the surrounding cities can move off the land, and use the sea more. It can easily grow to a nice size 6 city.
6: Could move 3, but then city 5 is far less productive. It would mean we can squeeze in another sea-city to the NW of it.
7: I don't like loosing hills neither, but this is the spot... or 6 moves 3, and we build another (tiny) city in between 6 and 7.
8: needs irrigation to grow beyond size 2.
9: the gold city... with the only problem that choosing this site meant that the river-hill at 8-9 could not be worked. I don't think it's a bad choice...
10: also needs irrigation, and it has to come from far.
11: potentially a very powerful city. It could move 1, which would make more hills available, but then it would lose its 1 move distance to site 12. If we aren't pressed for 12, I would certainly prefer moving it one tile.
12: Could move 3 if the terrain asks that much. But I guess we're not settling that one fast, so plenty of time to decide
13: Is the only site that takes some kind of bonus: it's on a shielded grassland. It could move 3 or 2, but then the dessert is split between city 1 and 13... I thought that when we've got some more exploration done, we should try to settle another city on the coast (either where Gronk is now, or one tile 8 of him. Let's say this is still open for the moment.
So... what do you guys think?
DeepO
I mailed a screenshot to our e-mail address. Keep that closeby when reading the next things
(BTW, sorry for having such thin lines, I know they are hardly readable, but it was either that or a huge filesize)With this proposal, it seems we more or less keep at ideal distance. To the North, I thought cities with 1 move in between them would be more critical than on the South (as we won't have any neighbours there). South, there can be bigger and smaller steps.
I tried to give each city 12 workable tiles (sometimes on the coast they have a few more, but there is not much to be done about that). Further, I tried to give all 6 workable landtiles (can be borrowed from a neighbouring city when we don't have aquaducts nor harbors).
I would suggest we take our hut-settler to either city 1 or 2, and for the settlers we are building take sites 3,4 and 6 (as they have bonus food). Further, city 11 would be a good one to settler early, and 8 or 10 to control barbs.
Specific city comments:
1: I know that moving it one tile would place it at the river, but that also gives one more desert tile, and one less flood plain.
2: Could also move 3, but we've got plenty of pure coast cities anyway
3: This city has too few tiles as drawn here, but that's only temporary: it should be better once the surrounding cities can move off the land, and use the sea more. It can easily grow to a nice size 6 city.
6: Could move 3, but then city 5 is far less productive. It would mean we can squeeze in another sea-city to the NW of it.
7: I don't like loosing hills neither, but this is the spot... or 6 moves 3, and we build another (tiny) city in between 6 and 7.
8: needs irrigation to grow beyond size 2.
9: the gold city... with the only problem that choosing this site meant that the river-hill at 8-9 could not be worked. I don't think it's a bad choice...
10: also needs irrigation, and it has to come from far.
11: potentially a very powerful city. It could move 1, which would make more hills available, but then it would lose its 1 move distance to site 12. If we aren't pressed for 12, I would certainly prefer moving it one tile.
12: Could move 3 if the terrain asks that much. But I guess we're not settling that one fast, so plenty of time to decide
13: Is the only site that takes some kind of bonus: it's on a shielded grassland. It could move 3 or 2, but then the dessert is split between city 1 and 13... I thought that when we've got some more exploration done, we should try to settle another city on the coast (either where Gronk is now, or one tile 8 of him. Let's say this is still open for the moment.
So... what do you guys think?
DeepO
so here it is :
. I’d be thrilled to find out I can do this if I could still play 
Comment