The Map Room

[E_T]

Site 13 is coastal and we might be able to have 11 as a coastal, too. It will all depend on the actual terrain.

Eta Tamali

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by pikesfan
I'm glad we now have Barcelona. I think the greatest priority must be #2 and then #3 and then the city with the Iron.

Si Señor. Area-16 and area-17 should also have high colonization priority, cause of their approximity to the Demogyptian sphere of interest, and our capital distance.

[ThePlagueRat]

Suggested priority: 2,3,6,16,17(?)

Hmm, perhaps 16, but closer to iron?
(picture is blurred so I cannot see)

[E_T]

Site 11 has the Iron, but only in it's expanded Radius. I have an Idea of getting the Iron a bit Quicker than that & having Site 11 possibly be on the coast. It will require a do nothing city being built in Death Valley (the new name for that 1 Desert tile that is surrounded by Mountains). I'll put up a new map, as soon as the next turn is done.

Eta Tamali

[ThePlagueRat]

Well, if we are only after the iron there we could rather build a slave-colony instead of requesting our to fine pioneers to settle in the valley of death...


But do we have to haste for the iron now?
I think we should close the border up north first, and make war later...

[Arnelos]

ok... I have a different suggestion... (from the other thread)



Here are Togas' suggested changes to my suggested plan:

[Arnelos]

We lose less tiles this way, but there's more overlapping. Thankfully, most overlapping is on non-critical tiles like desert, mountains, the ocassional hills, and some fields.

[ruby_maser]

The location of Site #1 is in a flood plain. It will negate the benefit of the tile if we put it there, and IIRC, placing it on a flood plain as opposed to near one increases the likelihood of disease.

On the upside, I think its location there would insure it would not need an aqueduct, but again, it will only have the benefit of one flood plain. The city will make the other a typical 2/1/2.

I think it should be located at the (1?) or elsewhere. We can then get more benefit from that desert tile and keep the flood plains. While it means an aqueduct eventually, I think it would be a better trade-off.

[Arnelos]

I like what I call #5 where it is becuase it's population will take off sooner and the proximity of the river will help it feed all of the miners for those mountains and hills tiles. If you move it north, it may not have enough food to feed the laborers for all of those tiles.

As for what I call #3, Togas and I have been debating whether it should be north or south of the river. I believe it should be north of the river to make it coastal (only northwestern port, harbor, eventually commercial docks) and less over-lapping with the rest of our territory. Togas believes it should be south of the river so that we can use the river as a common defensive line against potential GoW or ND attack.

You'll also note that my positions for what I call #10, #11, and #12 is different from E_T's. I like #10 where it is because as a harbor+docks city with mines on those grassland tiles, it should do quite nicely and the overall layout of cities utilizes more tiles overall (including all of those sea tiles). My site for #11 utilizes more of our territory in the far south and leaves more room for #12 to have its own area and (at Togas' suggestion) squeeze another small into where I have the "?" marked on the map (if you move #7 SE as he suggested).

Overall, my plan is an attempt to utilize as many tiles as possible, even if some cities overlap. With a higher total utilization of land and actually more cities, I believe we're better off than attempting to form so-called "perfect cities" that result in the use of less available land and having less cities (thus less production centers).

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
The location of Site #1 is in a flood plain. It will negate the benefit of the tile if we put it there, and IIRC, placing it on a flood plain as opposed to near one increases the likelihood of disease.

On the upside, I think its location there would insure it would not need an aqueduct, but again, it will only have the benefit of one flood plain. The city will make the other a typical 2/1/2.

I think it should be located at the (1?) or elsewhere. We can then get more benefit from that desert tile and keep the flood plains. While it means an aqueduct eventually, I think it would be a better trade-off.

The location of "1?" is where Togas suggested that I should move #1. I agree, given the flood plain issue, that this might be advisable. The problem is that you then have to move #5 north, which seems like a good idea until you start counting the food that city will make versus the number of tiles it needs to utilize.

[Togas]

Move #1 north and set it in stone.

Consider moving #5 SW, and slipping in another minor city into the gap betwen #5 and Pamplona.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
Move #1 north and set it in stone.

Consider moving #5 SW, and slipping in another minor city into the gap betwen #5 and Pamplona.

--Togas

I'll look at that.

[ThePlagueRat]

Just an idea:

#6 and the Terra Incognita north of it, would probably be strategially important sites in the long term.
Someone else would settle north of #6 relativly soon, if we don't.

So having those areas settled right after doing #2, and #3,
would close our northern borders optimally...
(Then civilize the westcoast and the fertile lands.)

[Arnelos]

Togas,

I've updated cityplan3.jpg, but stupid AOL isn't letting me upload it at the moment

Anyhow... here's what I've noticed...

Moving #5 as you originally suggested to the NE isn't such a bad idea afterall... it still gets the wheat and the loss of river tiles is meaningless for food. It loses 2 food, yeah, but it there aren't any grassland tiles to help with food ANYHOW. One things for certain, that wheat tile better be irrigated ASAP once that city is built (in either location).

Moving #5 NE as you originally suggested would then allow for the #7's move SW and placing another city on the hills tile 1 S and 1 SE of the iron. That new city could utilize the tiles of the river area and the hills and mountains (but a small area overall, only 8-9 tiles, but that's worth it).

Since we're not likely to be conquering half the board in this game, squeezing additional cities into our land is the best thing to do (unlike single-player games, where you make "perfect cities" and reduce number of cities because you're counting on taking over half the map and you want to reduce overall corruption).

#1's move north means that #5's move NE is quite workable and takes out the need for a new city in between #5 and Pamplona (but places the need for that new city between #5 and #7 back on the table).

So your original suggestion looks pretty good, Togas

[Togas]

^bump^