New Expansion Plan?

[Arnelos]

Here's what I've just worked up:



The numbers are just what the priority would be if we're really very concerned about people stealing our land. If we're not concerned about people stealing our land, then we change the order to go for the better spots first. If we're concerned about keeping our empire compact for defense, we change the orders for that. etc, etc, etc.

What I'm thinking more about here is what we want the final picture to look like.

Personally, I don't have a problem with stacking, I have more of a problem with unutilized tiles. That said, I'm willing to sacrifice the occassional mountain, hills, or desert tile (as few as possible, though).

I also like coastal cities because you effectively get more utilized tiles overall (since coastal and sea tiles can be utilized for food and trade).

That said, we're somewhat stuck with some patterns of arrangement because of where our current 3 cities already are (which might be differently placed with the information we know now, but that's a pointless topic of discussion because we didn't know it when we placed those cities - especially Madrid ).

So please comment on the above.

[Arnelos]

As for city names... using my region names and stuff...

#1 = Oviedo (capital of Asturias)
#2 = Saragossa (capital of Aragon)
#3 = La Coruna (in Galicia)
#4 = Valencia (capital of Valencia)
#5 = Leon (capital of Leon)
#6 = Toledo (in Castile)
#7 = Cadiz (in Andalucia)
#8 = Salamanca (in Castile)
#9 = Santiago (capital of Galicia)
#10 = Murcia (capital of Murcia)
#11 = Malaga (in Andalucia)
#12 = Seville (capital of Andalucia)
#13 = Lisbon (capital of Portugal)
#14 = Bilbao (capital of the Basque Country)
#15 = Valladolid (in Castile)

[Ninot]

I like your plan for the most part

i just think, maybe city cites 1 and 2 should be switched?

other teams are less likely to plant on site 1, as it is further and on desert. and 2 has a resource they might think they could deny us of.

so thats my ONLY recomendation.

[Togas]

This should have been posted in the Map Room thread.

Move #1 N one tile.
Move #3 SE one tile.
Move #9 N one tile.
Move #13 NW one tile.
Move #5 N one tile.
Move #7 SW one tile.
Slip another city in there between 13, 7, & 5 that has direct access to the iron.

#10 should be moved, perhaps one tile N, because all of the grain is 2 spaces from the city. #12 may also be adjusted to better fill the used space.

Yes, Cow Valley is crowded under this plan, but this plan takes into consideration military readiness in the event that Cow Valley comes under attack.

These changes do not take into effect river placement.

Order to build them: 2, 3, then 1.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
This should have been posted in the Map Room thread.

Move #1 N one tile.
Move #3 SE one tile.
Move #9 N one tile.
Move #13 NW one tile.
Move #5 N one tile.
Move #7 SW one tile.
Slip another city in there between 13, 7, & 5 that has direct access to the iron.

#10 should be moved, perhaps one tile N, because all of the grain is 2 spaces from the city. #12 may also be adjusted to better fill the used space.

Yes, Cow Valley is crowded under this plan, but this plan takes into consideration military readiness in the event that Cow Valley comes under attack.

These changes do not take into effect river placement.

Order to build them: 2, 3, then 1.

--Togas

I'll go work on this now.

[Arnelos]

Ok, when I was placing your changes, I realized that I had originally wanted what you suggest... I changed it to what I ended up suggesting because you CAN'T move #13 NW by 1 because that's a mountain tile

Thus it makes little sense to move #9 N by 1, as then you're just over-lapping with #3 and losing mountain and grassland tiles to the south.

As for moving #3 SE by 1... why? That just makes the city non-coastal, causes more overlaps, and utilizes less total tiles (as keeping it where I suggested gives more sea tiles and overlaps less along with being coastal).

Moving #1 and #5 north by one each along with moving #7 SW by 1 only works if we want to throw a city into hills west of #5, but it IS possible to do that.

Given that #13 can't move NW, here's all of Togas' suggestions:



FYI: I don't have enough webspace to keep too many of these up at the same time... so I'll take down this "working copy" and replace it as needed.

[Arnelos]

Looking at the changes again...

Moving #5 north and #7 SW means that a whole section of that river isn't being utilized... if the citysite I have marked as "?" is put next to the iron tile as suggested, that doesn't help... we'll still leave 3 river tiles unutilized...

Moving "?" 1 to the SE would utilize all of those tiles, however. Since #13 can't move 1 NW anyhow, that might be the best move.

All things considered, I'd rather build an extra worker to use for a colony on that iron tile than mess up our city plan for the rest of the game...

[Arnelos]

Another idea...

If you're concerned about #3 being north of the river because of the defensive value of it being south of the river (though, in my experience, this will be meaningless since a smart human opponent will know to the cross the river first ), you can move #3 1 south rather than 1 southeast. That keeps it as a coastal city and if you don't move #9 north (which is pointless considering that #13 can't move NW), then it still works out (though there is more over-lapping).

Personally, I don't think it would make much difference if #3 is north of the river, but I could be wrong.

[Togas]

Gave you the wrong place for #1, sorry. Move that SW.

You're right about #13. That may be the only place possible for it. Keep 9 where it is, as #13, 7, & 11 are already coastal.

See if you can't tuck a city in there between 13 & 5, then see how that affects 7 and 12.

Move #10 either N or NW if you can scoot 12 over a bit.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Ok... doing another change...

[Togas]

As for an attack on #3 ... it'll take an invader an extra turn to cross the river NE of the city before attacking. They would be foolish to attack across a river, so we know they'll move to this point. We attack them at that point, on grassland (clear the swamp), where they have 0 defensive bonuses prior to their entry into the city. Furthermore, units in cities 1, 2, and 3 can all attack this location.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Ok, here we go:



I don't like moving #3 off of being coastal. Then we don't have any cities coastal on the whole western side of the country and we're giving up a whole bunch of extra food (harbor) and trade (docks) later in the game. But I can see your point about defense. It will depend on whether the city ever has to defend itself and whether that one turn is really that crucial. Needs more debate.

As for the others... the problem I see with moving #5 either north or northwest is that it won't have enough food to utilize all of those hills and mountains tiles... we have to leave it where it is so it can use the wheat and the river as a foodbasket to feed all of those miners.

As for #7, moving it SW is definately the right move and sneaking the "?" city in there works even if you dont' move #5 north, but it's a squeeze (but I'm fine with that!).

As for moving #10 and #12, it's just too hard to find a workable arrangement... I'd WANT to put #12 SW and move #11 to correspond, but there's a mountain there

#10 will obviously be another harbor+docks city and it will need to mine a lot of those grassland tiles to have production (just like Solace or Shiberport on Uber Isle in the Civ3DG). As a harbor+docks city, it will utilize more sea tiles where it is anyhow.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
As for an attack on #3 ... it'll take an invader an extra turn to cross the river NE of the city before attacking. They would be foolish to attack across a river, so we know they'll move to this point. We attack them at that point, on grassland (clear the swamp), where they have 0 defensive bonuses prior to their entry into the city. Furthermore, units in cities 1, 2, and 3 can all attack this location.

--Togas

Then the logical move is to flank us on the west by crossing the river out there or landing troops by boat out there.

[Arnelos]

btw... we probably (if we can get away with it) want to put another city north of #6 to better protect Madrid and get more of that river valley...

That said, certain allowances for ND need to be made.

[Togas]

#1 is still wrong.

Move it north of it's CURRENT location to that desert tile that has Flood Plains to the S and SE of it.

--Togas