City placement proposal

[DeepO]

NYE: Done.

Too tired right now to fuly discuss the other proposal, Sorry Arrian. I'll check it tomorrow.

DeepO

[notyoueither]

I have to disagree with alexman's plan.

In the South, only city 6 can use wheat prior to a temple plus 10 in city 4, 5 or 6 (really only 4 or 6 to close all the space).

DeepO's plan has 5 cities in the space of the 4. The strength of DeepO's, as far as I can see, is that city 3 can stay or go. If it stays, it becomes the focus of the South. If it goes after building many settlers, it leaves all 4 cities in essentially the same shape as alexman has them. Only alexman gives us one settler pump, while DeepO potentially gives us 3.

These are thoughts off the top of my head.

[DeepO]

Arrian, I know you're going for a coastal wondercity, but if you for a moment forget about that goal, and merely focus on a powerhouse, which would then be the best site: Your #4, or my #3? I don't think there will be much difference, so my plan becomes superiour because it has an extra city, and thus the extra commerce. The same for #5: It ws deliberately placed on that far edge of the country because it is the only tile that can access all that sea, while at first keep some landtiles (when the neighbours haven't grown yet) so there is some production to build it up, after which it can become a sleeping gold city. That's exactly its strength, so certainly we'll need it.

I would fully agree with you, if this was a normal game in which cities grow beyond size 12, and so the compromise of keeping #3 as an intermediate city for the moment, a settler pump and not a cultural hog, is fine by me. Also, if it would become a wonder city, there is no real reason to disband it after use: we can starve it later, and keep it around as a size 3 or 4 city with a wonder in it. But there is no real reason for that, there is room enough (I think )

DeepO

[Arrian]

Hmm. *grumbles* Well, I guess. But it looks wrong.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

One more thing to consider about cramped city spacing, however:

Each city requires 30 shields and 2 pop points to build. Is the extra commerce/shield output from say... your proposed city #3 going to make up for the cost of building the settler and the increased corruption (# of cities), and if so, how long will it take to recoup that opportunity cost? Without going overboard on testing, there isn't really any way to know for sure, I guess, but my gut is telling me that city #3 in your proposal isn't worth it.

I want to get the best land settled & utilized quickly so that we can get to work on other priorities (such as dealing with our newfound neighbors). Building lots of cramped cities leaves us in expansion mode longer than I'd like.

-Arrian

[Randolph]

As a side note I think we should hammer out these two proposals and have a vote on them in the next 5 or so turns.

Right now I like the idea behind DeepO's (although I wouldn't be opposed to 1 or 2 minor moves. I don't have the same grasp on corruption as some of you so I'm not sure of #3's impact on it (besides the simple +1 city), by my intuition certainly is that it's worth it (albeit it is far from aesthetically pleasing to my eye).

[alexman]

Well, now that we have neighbors, I vote for DeepO's proposal too. My more relaxed spacing was more suited for peaceful expansion, but it's not as good for war (because the extra city would go north instead of at the #3 spot).

Random comment: with religious civs, you can count on (or at least you should try) getting an early cheap temple, even in a settler pump.

[Arrian]

It appears I'm in the minority, which is what I expected. This is one battle I'm not gonna fight: I have no MP experience and furthermore have never really been able to bring myself to try tight city spacing, so I will concede to those who know better.

One request: after we get our first few cities built on good terrain around EotS, can we prioritize getting a city up north in the jungle area to create a buffer zone/early warning system in case of a Vox Immortal attack?

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Actually, an outpost at the top of the mountain range would be better and easier.

[alva]

damn*d, Apo lost my post , ok shorter version

This is one battle I'm not gonna fight: I have no MP experience and furthermore have never really been able to bring myself to try tight city spacing, so I will concede to those who know better.

Arrian, I really do not know better, but, I do know the higher the level in SP the closer I pack my cities.
In MP probably even closer then deity.
In emperor we/I go for extra goals/esthetics, not so on deity or MP, here I first want to survive, then give them a challenge, then win

btw, I would even put one or two extra cities in it.

Actually, an outpost at the top of the mountain range would be better and easier.

interesting, where exactly?
Can one build these things outside our borders btw?

[Theseus]

Yeah, you can build outposts anywhere except other civs' territory. They can;t co-exist with forts though, which sucks.

At some point, when we've got a town / city producing 5+ or 10+ shields, if we can slip an extra Worker into the build queue it would be worthwhile to get an outpost built (I'm addicted to them in SP).

[alva]

on the other hand, just leaving a warrior up there is more or less the same thing, isn't ?
(before republic anyway)

[Theseus]

Where / what is the latest plan?

(I've been thinking a lot about our current situation... give me a little bit of time to post my thoughts).

[Dominae]

Theseus, it should be in the GS mailbox. Maybe DeepO deleted it, though. If so, I can send it to you myself.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Maybe someone should re-number the city sites to reflect more or less the order in which we're planning to settle them. As of now, I'm not sure what our plan is after site 3.


Dominae