[ooc]: should we backfill?

[ruby_maser]

I have seen alot of the good work with city planning Señor Tamali has been doing, and in terms of placing, they are very good. I was wondering about the order of establishing these cities though.

We cannot expect to grow unchallenged. What does everyone think about establishing cities farther away if they are prime locations, and then backfilling as best as can be done the distance between.

I expect all this land to our west and south will mean there is probably at least another team in that direction. Should we be more reserved in our policies, and try to save diplomatic face or boldly go for the best land first? Should we attempt to claim territory against rivals and try to recognize their claims?

Acquistion of horses in this fairly-fast terrain south of the dense jungle that divides our continent in two could be key to control of the south. Any team to our southwest will not likely have access to it as early as we could if we were to trade for it with GoW (they have it, IIRC). Beelining for city locations with horses in them might alter planning for those locations.

Also, we can expect this jungle to make things difficult for Neu Dem to colonize the south. They may continue to hem in GoW by colonizing northwards into more hospitable terrain, but they are already on to making their third city. Their ability to REX expands exponentially with each one; we can't expect to lay claim to the south forever. What are everyone's thoughts concerning a backfill policy?

[E_T]

Glad you asked.... Here'a a new Plan map. I only have time for the one tonight and won't have any more until later.

Oh, note the one thing that I had put on the top of the map....



E_T

[E_T]

THe one problem with back filling is Defense (and Roads). And you need one for the other.

E_T

[Arnelos]

I'm against backfilling for the reasons E_T stated (DEFENSE), but it MIGHT be permissable if we think we can get away with it.

[Aidun]

Roads are the strength of any empire: the Roman empire became strong through roads because it gave them the possibility to quickly transport their armies. We shouldn't forget that. I suggest creating a military unit of every settler we create. The colonization is a little bit slower, but the defenceproblem is solved then.
There is another option that is more risky: leaving some of our nearby cities for a few turns without military units: the units are being placed in the cities that lie further away. The cities without defence can be defended by a mobile force that keeps barbarians off. There is no threat that other teams should conquer these cities: they shall be discovered by our further-away-cities before they can come close to our nearby-cities.
I think we should also keep in mind that we should not build our cities too close to Neudem as they might feel threatened by us and declare war.

Aidun

[pikesfan]

I would switch #5 and #7. We already have a silk with #2. #7 will give us a second silk, and is much closer and more easily defensible. It will probably have less corruption than #5 because it is closer to Madrid. Yes, #5 has two silks, but it is too far away right now in my opinion.

[pikesfan]

I also suspect that there is no one to the west, unless the continent stretches for a very long way to the west, or there is some sort of isthmus to the west connecting to another continent. At any rate, I think there is no one to the west who is as close to the Magyar Group as they are to Madrid. Surely any civ to the west would have sent out explorers in our direction by now?

[OliverFA]

This is a very interesting debate, and a nice thing we are going to discusse that at this point. Very wise of you, señor Ruby_Maser.

My opinion is roughly the same as Sr. Arnelos and Sr. Tamali, though I think that some light backfilling could server better our interests. For example, the city 10 in Tamali's plan has very few to offer, and we could discard it and let a gap that would be filled later.

Also, the existence or not of a civ at our west/south affects directly our plans. We need information about that.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by pikesfan
I would switch #5 and #7. We already have a silk with #2. #7 will give us a second silk, and is much closer and more easily defensible. It will probably have less corruption than #5 because it is closer to Madrid. Yes, #5 has two silks, but it is too far away right now in my opinion.

You are right but a possible interest of #5 is to complete our closing of the southern part of the continent, and get access to a second expanse of water, possibly ocean.

[pikesfan]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
You are right but a possible interest of #5 is to complete our closing of the southern part of the continent, and get access to a second expanse of water, possibly ocean.

I think we will be overreaching if we try for #5 now. Yes, I can see our borders will theoretically close the southern part of the continent, but nothing will stop anyone from sailing past #5, or sneaking past #5 before we build #6. And what is to stop a determined powerful civ from going through the borders anyway? Also the borders with #5 will be long and skinny and far away and thus not easily defended. Also #5 may be very close to somebody else. We need more information about what is north of #5 before we think of it. I fear #5 is too close to other civs.

I think we should grab what we can reach easily and consolidate it before we think of trying for far away things such as #5. If #5 had completely different and new luxuries then it would be a different story.

[Thrumble]

Originally posted by pikesfan


I think we will be overreaching if we try for #5 now. Yes, I can see our borders will theoretically close the southern part of the continent, but nothing will stop anyone from sailing past #5, or sneaking past #5 before we build #6. And what is to stop a determined powerful civ from going through the borders anyway? Also the borders with #5 will be long and skinny and far away and thus not easily defended. Also #5 may be very close to somebody else. We need more information about what is north of #5 before we think of it. I fear #5 is too close to other civs.

I think we should grab what we can reach easily and consolidate it before we think of trying for far away things such as #5. If #5 had completely different and new luxuries then it would be a different story.

I agree, there is also potential culture flip from being closer to Neu Dem's capital and the loss of production due to corruption could make the location expensive to maintain and develop.

[E_T]

Because we are Commercial, Our Corruption/Waste will be a LOT less than the other Non-Commercial Civs.

E_T

[jdjdjd]

I do like the idea of 5 & 6 to close off the southern part of the continent, and also stopping Neu Dem at the jungle. Then city 11, which is now in the fog, becomes vital as backup to these cities (also a possible horse depot). But we will need to properly defend 5, 6 & 11 cities as soon as possible, and build a temple to prevent culture flip from the Neu Dem capital in 5 & 6.

As for the horses, we seem to have prime possible locations in city 1, 4, 6 and possibly 11, (assuming its a continuation of the plains from the south and the grasslands to the north); to have a horse or two or even three pop up.

But I think sending out for a far reaching city, such as 5 & 6 to help mark our territory is a good idea. As E-T mentioned we have the benefit of reduced corruption to start. Sure someone may want to blow past 5 & 6 and settle land to the south, but they would have many draw backs, such as

1. culture flip to us (we are religious and they have to fear that) well ND is too, so we cancel each other out - but if we have established cities with possible temples in them, they have to be uneasy at least
2. cutting off an early city from their main cluster,
3. possibly antagonizing us,
4. they (ND or Lux) have to worry about each other and GW too, and they need to stake out their claim to land to their N, E and W, not just their south
4a. ND loses out on possible good and unoccupied land to their west by going South and Lux could lose out on possible good unoccuppied land to their East.
4b. The two of them may have a pact already, in one of the other threads the question was raised if they had not already made an alliand against GW - then wouldn't their best bet be to pin in their "Beast to the North" by building cities north. Neu Dems first city is NE of their capital.
5. Excess corruption - neither ND or Lux is commercial

Thats my opinion....

[GodKing]

I like the idea of going west and cutting off the three civs to the north of us with anyone who may be to the south. That also said, if nobody is to the south, that looks like a hell of a lot of land we can fill in without any compitition if we cut off the other teams (and particularly if we get tehm waring with eachother).

[Hot Mustard]

As many here have already said, it makes sense to "draw a line in the sand" straight across the continent, and I support the plan fully. As for backfilling, I am not in favour of it in this game. We could end up with rival cities in between ours, making our outside rim ripe for culture flip. It may be wise to put all REX expedience towards settling sites #5 and #6 after cow valley (#1). Next priority would be #2 and #3, followed by #7 and #9.