City placement proposal

[DeepO]

Disbanding #3: I'm not sure. It might seem kind of pressed in between the other cities, but it can work 12 tiles, if the other cities focus on sea tiles later on. If we would disband it later on, we get 3 cities which can use more land tiles, but waste sea tiles... I think that if we want to use all available tiles, we should put 4 cities on the grass in the South, not 3.

I don't particularly like taking the hill for #7 either, but to avoid that, it should move 7, city #6 move 3, and on the coast between the two an extra city (or an empty space which can be filled once #3 gets disbanded). In total there would be a bit more production, but it's kind of a long shot for just one shield... disbanding a city which gets rebuild one tile away... I think just using the hill would be more efficient.

I guess everyone agrees on using #3 as a settler pump, though, settlers every 4 turns sure look promising.

DeepO

[alva]

Have we decided anything short term yet, Jack-www just sent the save to nye

[DeepO]

Well, I think that NYE's first thing was protection for our settler, on his way to #2. That leaves us a bit of time on what to do with the city once it is build

DeepO

[DeepO]

Updated proposal sent to our e-mail address. I also tidied the boundaries between the cities... note that the boundaries are flexible, and not perfectly final: e.g. city #3 and #9 have too few tiles, but once we'll need them, we can move #2 and #4 more onto the sea, so that will create some breathing room for EotS and thus for the neighbouring cities.

Remaining problems are that it seems #11 has a bit too much tiles, and that #1 has permanently too few (certainly if we want to give one of it's fps to #13). But I don't think anyone will expect #1 to grow to full size anyway.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Have we decided where the settler is going yet?

I say we either send it to the gold hill or along the river north of EotS, and build a city asap. The first settler from EotS can then head south to the nice coastal spot w/wheat and bonus grasslands.

I haven't looked at the proposed city layout... can someone email it to me at mishlea@msn.com ?

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Arrian, I just mailed it to you.

It looks like we're heading for city site #2 with our first settler, and probably (but this is not final yet) to site #3 with our current build. It would make a great site for a settler pump, with game, wheat, and shielded grass.

DeepO

[Shiber]

I like the new plan, except for #3. I'd remove it and move #4 one tile west.

[DeepO]

Oops... I just noticed a mistake: when exporting the new file into jpg, I lost a number, it seems. The unnumbered city above #1 should be #13, like it was in the old plan.

Shiber: I don't think many will agree. If we would move #4 one tile West, it isn't a coastal city anymore, and thus can't profit from the sea. Further, it would waste a shielded grassland... if we don't want that, the first possible site would be #3 again.

Just think of #4 as a city which later becomes a pure harbor city, and #3 as the powerhouse you'd want, and everything will be fine

DeepO

[Arrian]

DeepO,

Thanks! I'll check it out tonight. Can't wait... I feel like a student who hasn't done the required reading for class. You guys are talking about numbered city sites and I haven't a clue.

-Arrian

[Shiber]

DeepO, I suppose that if #3 will get the tile SW SW of EoTS (which currently has 13 tiles to work) then I won't complain.

[DeepO]

Yes, #3 has only 8 tiles to work now, but that has more to do with not knowing how to put the boundaries. There won't be any problem giving it 12 tiles, as #4 also uses too many tiles, and #7 could swap one tile with #6 as well (giving #3 another one from #6). I'm sorry that the borders aren't clearer, but it isn't simple to cope with the changing situation: I tried to put them like this to proof that all cities can have decent production (ideally at least 6 land tiles), and that eventually all can get 12 tiles (apart from #1, which won't need it).

In reviewing, I saw I forgot 2 tiles as well (onbe of them the 13 tiles from EotS), but that is not that important. We will need to puzzle a bit to fit all the pieces together, this layout certainly is not the final and only solution. But I think the cities are placed so that we can puzzle, and don't lose important tiles in doing so. E.g. note that we lose very few sea tiles, which in itself is not simple to do

DeepO

[alexman]

First of all, great job in working out this plan.
I am usually in favor of tight city placement like this, but this time I would like to play devil's advocate because we are lacking two fundamental reasons for this strategy: bad terrain and close neighbors. It doesn't look like we have either of these.

Also, given the time we have to micromanage in this game, I think it's a plus if we have more flexibility in the tiles that can be worked by each city. Otherwise you almost always end up in situations where you wish you could switch worked tiles to save wasted shields or food.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should have 4-tile spacing either, but I tend to agree with Shiber that #3 is not necessary. It increases corruption of all cities that are farther away from EoS than 3 tiles. If #3 could grow to size 12, then it would be worth it. But right now a max-size-6 city is increasing corruption in most core max-size-12 cities.

In a smaller point, even though it is more dangerous because of the mountain, I like #11 in its original position so that we can have #10 in the hill. That way #10 can work a grassland tile instead of having only desert and hills.

Anyway, I'm e-mailing a screenshot with an alternative city placement.

[DeepO]

Nice plan, alexman... it was more or less the alternative I was looking into. It seems there are 3 changes: the deletion of #3, and shuffling of the cities surrounding it to compensate, the movement of #13 to the coast, and the #10 & #11 move.

#3: I wouldn't do it. We started from the assumption that no city would grow beyond size 12, and needed to work as much tiles as possible. My plan didn't lose tiles, and #3 was not supposed to be a size 6 (or even size 8, like in the last screenshot I sent) city. It is merely like that for as long as it can work as a settler pump, after which the neighbours need to work the sea more, and give some of their tiles to #3. Instead of looking to it as a growth constrained city that led to more corruption, I was thinking of it as one of the most productive cities we have, fortunately enough with very few corruption. Moving #1 NE whould be better when it came to battling corruption (in fact, I think I'll make that change in a next iteration).
I don't like that the southern cities lose too many sea tiles in your plan...

#13 to the coast: I thought about it, but because of the mountains, we would lose too many tiles, and access to a fp. I agree that it is a choice: in your setup we have more sea tiles, although I was hoping to recuperate by settling #15 one tile North of your #13. This should make two cities possible where you placed 1, and no matter the corruption level it should be beneficial. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't #13 about half way corrupted under despotism? which would mean that an extra city does not have a great impact on future cities, as we should be thinking on keeping that the border of our capital influence, where next cities should (if possible) be in our FP influence. Not much to say about it, I'm afraid, until we know more terrain.

#10 & #11: another thing I thought about. But #11 already has a grassland (with currently a forest on top) to use, and moving it would mean that we lose a bunch of sea tiles to use. However, we could cramm in another city (purely for commerce) after all the rest is settled and we are in a corruption friendlier gov between #10 and #11, which I like. I guess it is contrary to what you had in mind (lesser, but better cities), but it surely is an option.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I prefer Alexman's proposal, though I would change a couple of things:

Move city #4 a tile south (I view that spot as a potential powerhouse city: lots of bonus grassland. Wonder city, perhaps. Building it on the forest tile drops 2 bonus grass, IIRC).
Remove city #5 (if you move #4 to the south, then #5 is hopelessly cramped).

I guess one could leave #5 in there, and make it primarly a harbor town. But in order for #4 to be the production monster I want it to be, it needs to move 1 south and have priority on use of bonus grassland tiles.

-Arrian

[notyoueither]

Could someone forward alexman's and DeepO's updated shots to me?

username at hotmail dot com

Thanks.