Barelona: Temple vs. Settler

[ruby_maser]

Then I am going to presume it doesn't take into account the money we would make by having another city built sooner rather than later...

...or does it...

[OliverFA]

E_T, could you please explain your numbers? We seem to be having a hard time understanding them

[E_T]

Those trade numbers represent the accumulated trade (after corruption) from the city from 1300BC to 110BC. This is NOT taking into account 2 things, the likely hood of changing to Monarchy before 110BC AND the addition of cities that are closer to Madrid than Barcelona currently is (and theirby increasing the overall corruption for the city).

[EDIT] that is RAW Trade, before being split into research, gold and Luxuries from various slider positions.

E_T

[E_T]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
Then I am going to presume it doesn't take into account the money we would make by having another city built sooner rather than later...

That is correct. I would have to figure out the corruption for that other city and the trade from it, based on when it's founded, how soon it's connected, how fast it's population increases, etc. Those are variables that are too much to try to figure out at this time.

All of those figures deal with Barcelona only.

E_T

[Togas]

Building a settler wipes out your production, period, and the lesser production in these examples is due to building a settler. However, you get back production in the nation as a whole once the new city is created.

We can't just sit back and wait for all of our cities to be large enough to effortlessly birth settlers, nor should we put an undue burden on our weaker cities. There must be a balance struck.

I am intregued by the effects of a Habor in Barcelona, and I think that this improvement would greatly strengthen Barcelona's growth. I ask that Astrologix review these plans and give his opinion.

I am most in favor of SHT or HST, but I may be convinced of HTS if there is a great deal of public outcry for it.

--Togas

[CiverDan]

I am beggining to prefer to do HST. I don't want to build the settler quite yet there for defense reasons (from barbs). Then comes the matter of temple or Harbor. Total culture doesnt have any effect on individual borders between cities of two civs. Only the border cities in question do. If your concerned about culture flips, I have rarely heard of culture flips in MP. I have had MP games where I had a large culture lead on another civ and a lot of cultural pressure on an enemy city, with no flip. Not to mention the fact that ND overall seems to be more interested in brute force in general as opposed to building culture. Since we dont need the temple for happiness or to expand the borders for food purposes, lets go with the harbor first.

[E_T]

I just e-mailed the spreadsheets to Astrologix. Does anyone else what a copy, too?

E_T

[E_T]

Originally posted by oliverfa
Fascinating!

So by your calculations I assume that you would choose the Harbour Temple Settler option?

Actually, I would also like to get more cities built as soon as possible. But we also want the cities that we have to be as productive as possible, especially if we need to change our production goals in case of an emergency. If the city is too production poor to be able to do that, then it's not able to contribute to the whole if it is needed to do that.

E_T

[OliverFA]

I don't really believe that Barcelona is the right city for building a settler. After all we have Madrid stalled in population production. Once thw iron is connected and the warriors upgraded I would be in favour of Madrid building a settler. But remember Barcelona has too much things to do. It is our only coastal city at the moment, the only place where we can build galeys, harbour, the lighthouse... A temple would also help (in this thread http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=39825 Dan Magaha from Firaxis says that civ culture points are important in culture-fliping calculations)

With all that many things to be built there that no other city can at the moment, why a settler?

I agree to build settlers, but am reluctant to build them here.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by oliverfa
With all that many things to be built there that no other city can at the moment, why a settler?

You give me a convincing reason why "all those many things" should come first, and I'll concede. I gotta say I don't think its gonna happen though.

Also, I don't think Madrid should be substituted for Barcelona. I think Madrid should build one as well.

[OliverFA]

In my opinion these two things are more important: Temple for start acumulating culture and galley to start exploring. However, I don't want to make a big issue of all that. My personal opinion is that we should not build a settler with BCN right now and that it is an error. Not a big error, but an error. But I'm very aware of the power structure and won't challenge the team if the settler is finally done. Just accept it and try to be more convincent next time.

[astrologix]

E_T, I've been carefully reading your spreadsheet and I thank you very much for this great job.

I assume that our country needs more settlers ASAP, but on the other hand we should consider the global amount of settlers built and the global wealth produced in a given time.

If we see what Barcelona is able to build in the next 46 turns from now (until 150 BC), I find that with the STH or SHT options, only a settler can be produced by this city.

If the HST option (Max Growth) is applied, Barcelona can complete 2 settlers in that interval and the global amount of whealth will be high.

The first settler would be completed in 27 turns from now (510 BC) and the second in 46 turns (150 BC), and the city size would keep 3 pop after that last completion.

Barcelona shouldn't be consider as a settler factory, this role is naturally given to Pamplona.

I've calculated that Pamplona could build a 2nd settler in 9 turns from now and keep a high growth capacity after that. In that case, a new coastal city could be founded in 18 turns from now, near the spices river.

9 turns after that, with the HST above option, Barcelona will complete his first settler and 19 turns later his second settler.

IMO, it would be an excellent timing to build 3 new settlers in the next 46 turns.

If we continue to build a settler in Barcelona (STH and SHT options), the next spices city will be build in only 12 turns from now (only 6 turns before the "Pamplona option"), but the Barcelona potential will be wasted.

So, my decision is clear : HST max growth option for Barcelona.

Thus, I assume that ruby_maser would allow Pamplona to build a settler next the current one and that our Great Despot Togas will bless my decision

[OliverFA]

I'm glad the Barcelona governor took care of my suggestions about delaying the settler production a bit.

With that harbour we will be able to commerce with GoW if they build a HARBOUR at one of their coastal cities and maybe some other civ (it depends if commerce routes have to pass through ocean tiles or not) and build veteran galleys, which would be useful to watch the western coast.

Edited: changed Temple by harbour

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by astrologix
Thus, I assume that ruby_maser would allow Pamplona to build a settler next the current one and that our Great Despot Togas will bless my decision

Nope. Sorry. I've decided to pre-build the Hoover Dam instead. I figure the added benefit of such an improvement later on far outweighs the cost to us now.

[ThePlagueRat]

A harbour is good for Barcelona because of already mentioned reasons, but it won't help on the poor production. Something has to be done with that, and as for using workers we must underprioritize Barcelona until further.
We need develop production bases now.

How we can make Barcelona a serious production base is a more important issue to discuss. It will take some time to reach that goal because of the site Barcelona is built on. (for settler production as well)