New Expansion Plan?

[Arnelos]

moving #1...

[Togas]

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

If so, then city #9 and City #1 can still reach that tile to the SW of the city in a single turn and attack the enemy units in the open.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

#1 should be moved... refresh your page

EDIT: Ok... that didn't work... lemme try uploading that file again

EDIT: Ok, refresh your browser and you should see the new #1 location

[ThePlagueRat]

Many good plans here!
Site 2 and 3 are important to reach very soon.
...but shouldn't site 6 and 8 have a higher priority?


Those sites are pretty close to our capital so thats good, and we need a buffer zone up north... Landing at the West-coast would be an option for our opponents later, but not now i guess.


Close the northern area right after settling site 2 and 3. :doitnow:
And why not move site-2 just one tile to the NE ?


Then we can "curtain" down the South-West coast with our later settlements. Remember, an aggressive foe would be sure to exploit any openings in the west and north!
So why the priority of 4 and 5 then?



BTW: Its pretty bad if Demogyptians settle site- 3 while we
are doing 1 and 2, so this may be improved upon.
(if they are REXing south too, they can probably do that soon)

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat


Good plans!
Site 2 and 3 are important to reach very soon.
...but shouldn't site 6 and 8 have a higher priority?


Those sites are pretty close to our capital so thats good, and we need a buffer zone up north... Landing at the West-coast would be an option for our opponents later, but not now i guess.
Close the northern area right after settling site 2 and 3. :doitnow:

Then we can "curtain" down the South-West coast with our settlements. Remember, an aggressive foe would be sure to exploit any openings in the west and north!

Ok, see ya.

Yeah, I agree when it comes to sites #6 and #8... they probably should be swapped for #4 and #5... only problem is that then we'll leave our bottom area COMPLETELY open for naval "inchon landings"

If we move quickly, though, perhaps it won't be much of an issue... we'll see.

[Arnelos]

btw, if we plan to build another city NE of #6 and NW of #8, #8 should be moved 1 tile to the SE (making it coastal and utilizing more tiles) and the new city should be placed 3 tiles NE and 1 tile N of #6.

We probably can't get away with that, though... which is why I put #8 where it is.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ok, my suggestion...

Settling in the order of sites: 2,3,1,6,
will close foreign access to the south until they get the Bad-boat.


Then draw the curtain down the westcoast or settle near needed resources.

[GodKing]

I would move #3 one east from the original position and set a 3A city north of the river on the coast. It would not be the most productive in the long run but would be ok, and would fill in the gap nicely.

[ThePlagueRat]

Olà compadre!
------------------

Arnelos just told about planning to build later settlements NE of #6 and NW of #8. Thats interresting...

I said earlier that we should draw the curtain down the westcoast after settling 3, 2, 1, and 6,



Now, look at the blank-spot north of #6...
Perhaps it would be better to get foothold up there, prior to
all the cities on the westcoast ??!


I guess our opponents will be sure to get a foothold up there sooner than down the westcoast. (ehh, depends on when they get their s(t)inking little boats)



Ok, this is time for long term strategical decisions.
And we have to think carefully about them.
I trust you my dear Señores and fellow Españoles.

- Sanchez "El Niño" de PlãgÃates.
, brother of the deceased explorer Pedro "Peligroso".

[pikesfan]

2 should be first priority for the horses
then 9 for the iron
then 3
then 4

There’s no point in having luxuries if we can’t defend ourselves and keep other civs, such as GoW, from taking our luxury cities. Defence first.

What is the purpose of 1?

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by pikesfan
2 should be first priority for the horses
then 9 for the iron
then 3
then 4

There’s no point in having luxuries if we can’t defend ourselves and keep other civs, such as GoW, from taking our luxury cities. Defence first.

What is the purpose of 1?

The cities aren't really ordered in the order that I necessarily think we should build them, at this point there're more ordered in the order that I thought of their locations

So pay no attention to the numbers other than as terms of reference

I agree that #2 and #3 should go first.

[ThePlagueRat]

ooc:

I agree we settle the horse-site #2, first.
Horsemen are very good for offensive-defence!

The iron-site, should only be guarded with a sharp eye for now. We need them later, certainly if there is gonna be a great war in medieval times. So settle and close the outermost borders first.

[edit: I just looked upon the blurred map-image, I didn't see well, but am I right there are two iron-sites there? One of them on the west coast? In that case it would be well fit to "curtain" down the west coast soon, anyway... ]


For defence, numerous spearman+horseman combos are sufficient now, and might do great harm, provided a proper hit and run tactic is applied. I've seen it before.

[OliverFA]

I sugest we go for number 2 first. Meanwhile I would instruct my workers to build a road to the horses, connecting Pamplona with the new city at the same time.