Master builder poll

[lmtoops]

I like Tiberius selection for a city site.

I don't think we should builds mercs at this time. Warriors are adequate for our needs and cheap.

Whether we do war-war-war-sett or war-war-sett does not really matter to me. There are arguments both ways and in the end we are in the situation. So if it comes to a vote, I'll can be easily bribed

[quantum_mechani]

Tiberius: I just made the exact same suggestion of a city site using the same arguments in the Discussion for the Chronicle of Legoland thread

[ZargonX]

I am in support of building our settler after Warrior 2 is complete. As has been pointed out, we have an excellent city site available, and the sooner we get the city founded, the sooner it will be up and running and producing things for us.

Should we find another team located close to us, we will have warning enough to get our mercs in order.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
About the build order issue:
- delmar, you seem to assume that if we are in the vicinity of one of the other teams, they have built already 3 warriors and are heading in our direction with all 3 of them!

I didn't think about this in such detail, but you are right that maybe we should. I will address this issue in the Military Architect thread.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by ZargonX
I am in support of building our settler after Warrior 2 is complete. As has been pointed out, we have an excellent city site available, and the sooner we get the city founded, the sooner it will be up and running and producing things for us.

Should we find another team located close to us, we will have warning enough to get our mercs in order.

Building a settler right after Conan, we would have a problem with civil disorder. As our 3rd Warrior will take only three turns to build, I would rather build one more warrior and have him garrison Legopolis than artificially slow down Legopolis' growth to avoid unrest.

[ZargonX]

Ok, looking at all of the disparate discussions, I think the following would be the best plan for the moment, barring any unforseen developments:

-Continue construction of Warrior 3. He will be completed in 3450, 3 turns ahead of pop 3.
-Our borders will expand next turn (3550).
-Use warrior 3 to garrison the city. This will prevent the unrest at pop 3., as well as have a defensive unit on hand in case of any barbs, surprise visitors, etc.
-Build a settler immediately after Warrior 3.

This plan will avoid any unrest problems, thus preventing a turn of wasted production, as well as giving us a barbarian buffer, in case any show up. We will only delay the construction of our new city by three turns, and we'll also have BW researched by the time the settler is done, giving us the chance to build Mercs right away.

[Kloreep]

to third warrior. As much as I want that second city, specialists are just wasteful.

[Tiberius]

I agree with the plan, ZargonX.

[vondrack]

Yep. I agree, too. Even though I considered building a Merc instead of another warrior (you know, how much I dislike those 1/1/1 suckers... ), it would simply make things too messy. Another warrior and then our first settler.

[ZargonX]

Oh, on a side note... I guess I'm techincally the Master Builder for this term now? As the votes are closed, and Tiberius dropped out. Or, should we do a re-vote with the remaining candidates? Just want to keep everything on the up and up before I go giving myself any titles!

[Tiberius]

Can one change his vote? If so, I'll change mine from "Abstain" to "ZargonX" and you win. Or can I declare that I tranfer my votes to you? Or, since the result is tie, the President can break the tie, and declare here that "ZargonX is the winner, thus our first Master Builder".

I'm sure we can find something; I don't really think a re-vote is necessary.

[ZargonX]

Well, what does everyone else feel about this issue? Most importantly, what do you think quantum? As the other candidate, you have a big say in this issue.

[ZargonX]

As I mentioned in the Chronicle thread, I think we may want to consider moving our 2nd city site one tile to the north (9). that will give it access to the 3 bonus grassland, as well as our new cow. Go cattle!

[Spiffor]

I'm in favor on placing our city on a hill rather than the bonus grassland :
- The city tile will be as productive, regardless if it is located on bonus grass or hill.
- The city would have a defensive bonus. It will be extremely useful later in the game
- The city would have access to all 3 bonus grass + cattle + deserts (for when we'll mant to produce more shields) + is coastal.

Another city should be built to get the luxuries, which won't wait long, since we'll have 2 ulstra fast settler farms.

[vondrack]

Regarding the second city placement: see my post here. I do believe we should place the second city exactly as suggested before. Added defense will most probably be not very important, as our Mercs should be able to repel any invaders even if positioned in a deep valley... Besides, we are likely to expand both northwards and southwards, so the second city will hardly be close to our border.