Long Term Internal Affairs Discussion

[Panzer32]

Firstly, this is a complete picture of our empire (not shown in thread because of size):

http://apolyton.net/upload/files/Panzer32/GoW-empire390bc.jpg

Keep in mind that this is all long term, probably most of this stuff will be done after the Roleplay war.


Issue #1: City Placement:
We have a spread out empire. We need more cities, less spread out. In the west, cities are pretty good, but are not close enough to effectivly use the tiles. These are the places that I am suggesting that we plant our cities on.


(FYI, we did settle a city right where the settler is now).

Now for the east:

Now that is 3-spacing. You will notice I suggest we leave Port Isolation where it is, even though it was originally a temporary city. This was done on purpose.

EDIT: Be aware that the numbers are not the order that I suggest that we found the cities. They are simply a handy referance.

[Panzer32]

Issue #2: Workers

Basically, we don't have enough workers. In the last save, the number was 3 natives and one slave. That is not good enough for a 13 city empire. We should have at least 13. I hope that maybe we can switch the new cities' production from barracks to workers. Also, Camp Concord is to become a worker pump after the war.

Issue #3: City Kings

Currently, we have 4 Kingless Cities, and if we decide Port Isolation is permanent, that makes 5. This just exemplifies our lack of participation. I liked the idea at first, but if it has become a chore to some people, I think it might be better to have each city come under the Minister of the Interior, who could do spreadsheets of queues for various cities, which might be more unified than having various city Kings.

Thats it for now. Probably the biggest issue is city placement. Please comment

[Master Zen]

Issue #1: Looks good

Question: where are we going to get 9 settlers...


Issue #2: Actually I think this might be the biggest issue. 4 workers is just not enough for us. I would also agree to switching the new cities to make at least 2 extra workers, perhaps have some other city make a 3rd or even a 4th. That would give us 7.

Issue #3: Since my city is rather "out of it" it really makes no difference. However, I think that each king should present a queue, and then unify the queues with the Min. of Interior having the final say on each.

[Panzer32]

Question: where are we going to get 9 settlers...

Remember, this is long term. Many of the East cities will come from Port Isolation. Once Imperial city is done whatever wonder we are building, then I would like to see it churn out a couple settlers.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

This will generate RAMPANT corruption from a larger number of cities WE DON'T need. The original plan called for 4 cities and then we were done. Concentrating on building large productive cities that would outproduce and empire with double our city number.

The plan to produce a large number of small inefficient cities is not in our best interests.

[Master Zen]

cities 1 2 and 3 are a must our priority should be in building those cities with our next 3 settlers.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I am prepared to live with this cities now, but under no circumstances must the earlier cities give up anything to help these new ones limp along.

We need the real cities to support our war efforts.

The settler in Port Isolation needs to go to the site it was supposed to go to though, that way we can limit the trash cities to the central area and cut down on the corruption as much as possible.

[Panzer32]

We need to find the best city placement. Both GF and I are convinced that our plans our better. I'm going to make a scenario comparing the two.

We cannot settle any of the city sites before we decide on a plan, because none of the city sites are the same. Therefore, we need to pick which one as soon as possible.

[Panzer32]

ok, I did a scenario with both city placements to see which one was better. I found out that it didn't matter the number of cities in the East, they were all basically non-functioning cities. They all had crippling corruption. I think, that for the east, we should use my city placement and build the forbidden palace in city number 8. That allows each of those cities to be productive. I suggest, however, that city 9 be moved south one tile. This alleviates a lot of tile working congestion. Also, it gives us another coastal city.

Now for the east. I realise now that, unless we are going to eventually disband the camps, that cities 1 and 2 are a bad idea. City 3 would be moved SE, again to allow the other cities to use more tiles.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

They have corruption because of their distance and not being connected to the capital. Both of which can be fixed.

Three main elements of corruption:
1) Distance from capital. (Reduced/eliminated by FP and/or Courthouses)
2) Not connected to capital. (Eliminated by being connected to capital)
3) TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES (Only eliminated/reduced by burning your cities to the ground)

By placing our cities where they have an abundance of useful tiles we make each of our cities a very functional part of the empire. Our enemies accumulate massive numbers of cities making their corruption skyrocket. We beat them into the ground for being ignorant.

Classic Warmonger strategy.

[Panzer32]

Here is my revised proposal:

Only one city gets placed in the Western portion of the map:


This is placed here mainly to fill in tiles unused by the other cities. It has low worker placement priorities.

Here is my idea for the East:



City number 2 is the forbidden palace. There is a ring of productive cities around it. I feel that this is the optimal placing of the forbidden palace.

[Master Zen]

I beg to differ on what optimal warmonger strategy is, at least in my experience with both SP and MP games.

In SP, ultimate warmonger strategy is to use a camp system. 4-5 military camp cities are usually the best, with two of them 2-tiles from the capital, and the other each near a productive core city. Build barracks and voilá, you're churning out a good amount of units for defense and attack. I once went the extreme, built about 6 military camps by the time of chivalry with a huge map and the rest of my cities OCPed, and just crushed my neighbor in 20 turns which was the most powerful civ in the game and had about 25 cities.

On standard maps the strategy is the same, however, instead of OCP I'd use a 4-tile pattern, which I think is our error in this game since it is a standard map. I have never found OCP to be in any way superior to 3-tile or 4-tile on standard maps even with a camp system.

Finally, I think MP changes this whole strategy because humans are far more likely to successfully invade you than the AI. In MP, the best city placement is hands down 3-tile especially around the borders. Why? Because a 3-tile system can effectively defend and counterrattack any stack that gets in your way. You can move your defenses around the ring in the same turn, as well as your attack units which will strike at the stack as it approaches your cities. And with 3-tile no matter where the stack goes through, it WILL have to pass by a city. Any looser pattern of city placement will force you to move your counterattacking force into open ground to strike at the stack, and that is very dangerous.

For this reason is that I would recommend 3-tile as in Panzer's original plan for the west. Until we get hospitals, it is useless to get a lot of space for our cities. By the time we get there (if we get there) we simply disband the camps, which are meant to be temporary in the first place. By that time we well may be fearing an ND attack, and 3-tile will make our defense far more durable.

Just my 2 cents...

[Panzer32]

ok, are there any objections to using the latest city placement?

If there are none, then I suggest moving the settler West again next turn, to settle city 2 (FP city).

[Hot_Enamel]

Internal Affairs is not my area of expertise.

I just go for a good core first...so when can we get that extra city in the core ?

Is it worth using the settler there ?

We want our core down and in place before our GA.