Second City Placement

[UnOrthOdOx]

I do think our city should be in the direction of Sarantium to rope off land.

I also think #1 posted above is asking for Sarantium to attack us.

I'm also not saying that need be a bad thing. they attack, and it triggers the defense statement...

The site is a wee bit far from home from a defensive standpoint. And, it lacks immediate hammer production. Do we have sailing? We would need that a priority if we settle there.

I like it. Settle it, and if they attack we run em through in the name of defense.

My concern is WHERE is the horde.

They could be south of us or east of Sarantium. If south of us it could be a problem.

[Cptn Fancypants]

What info can we share with Sarantium at this stage in the game? Can we get the moderators to confirm to each team that each team has contact with The Horde? Do we have visual confirmation of Sarantium-Horde contact?

If we can ascertain Sarantium-Horde contact, perhaps we could negotiate borders with Sarantium in light of that contact without their divulging the location of The Horde (if they know The Horde's location).

We could even negotiate a contract in exchange for border agreements or some other strategic consideration that doesn't involve cash. This might be taken by some among us to be a violation of our principle that contracts can be had at equal cost to all parties, however.

[UnOrthOdOx]

The screenshot in turn 27 thread tells us Sarantium and Horde have contact with each other.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=153565

I'll be going over that closely to figure out what we can talk about.

[polarnomad]

One of The Horde's scouts is standing right next to Sarantium's borders, so they have contact.

EDIT: Hehe... beat me by a minute.

[UnOrthOdOx]

We should be able to talk to them about anything now. We have contact with them, they have contact with the Horde, we know they do, etc.

So, it's all open unless they have contact with a theoretical 4th civ.

Since snoopy posted we're allowed to trade screenshots of in-game once we have contact with each other, I believe we can discuss location of the Horde as well.

[Kloreep]

UnO brings up a good point, we might want to provoke Sarantium. It would be a nicely devious way to take land from them.

But do we really want to be doing this with our first settler out of AB? Let's settle a site good for producing those troops we'd need for war, then start worrying about provoking someone into one.

I'm not convinced about goading Sarantium into a fight, mind you, but regardless of our intentions on the matter, using our second city in this fashion would be a very bad move IMO. Anyone besides UnO remember Lux Invicta in the PTWDG (poly's first MPDG)? Rather than settling a close and productive city by their capital, they sent out their first settler to claim iron and grab land, and had first their outstretched hand chopped off, and then their head by a taskforce of swordsmen that Neu Demogyptica had pumped out by its closely placed core cities. If we make a grab at distant land, we should at least be sure of our capability to put up a fight.

Mind you, this move was worse in Civ3 than in Civ4 since Civ3 has corruption and Civ4 only has maintenance costs. But I still think it's a bad idea.

[OzzyKP]

What is Sarantium gonna chop our hand off with? Warriors? I am pretty much certain that they have neither archery nor bronze working. Certainly they will have it at some point, but we definitely have a significant head start in that area.

I'm still very much in favor of my 1st spot. Everyone else on the team really wanted to get the creative trait (which I think was a big mistake) so we could block off territory for ourselves peaceably without invading. If we don't actually take advantage of our creative trait to block off territory, then our traits are even more useless.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
What is Sarantium gonna chop our hand off with? Warriors? I am pretty much certain that they have neither archery nor bronze working. Certainly they will have it at some point, but we definitely have a significant head start in that area.

We have a head start in research, but not much of one in actual copper units, and what we gain there may only make up for our lack of warriors & archers. It would be foolhardy to get into a scrape immediately, I agree, but if they sour to us over the long term (which I would imagine would happen if we build right next to their capital) they definitely could build themselves up to the point of being able to deal us some damage over the long term.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I'm still very much in favor of my 1st spot. Everyone else on the team really wanted to get the creative trait (which I think was a big mistake) so we could block off territory for ourselves peaceably without invading. If we don't actually take advantage of our creative trait to block off territory, then our traits are even more useless.

I'd prefer to use Creative to build a curtain down the east corridor towards the south, blocking off most of the area between us and the jungle but leaving Sarantium about a city radius around their capital.

Again, though, even if we're going to provoke Sarantium into a fight in the long term, I think we should start off in the short term with setting up a good production base to make sure we're ready for a quick rush, and able to prepare some military from early on if not. Your site #1 has gold, which would be great for commerce, but only yields 2 hammers when mined (1 when not).

[UnOrthOdOx]

IF we don't grab that site now, it won't be around for later.

IMO this is simply not an option to debate. We MUST rope off the entire penninsula up here if we are going to have any chance. Every team out there knows the best way to deal with us is to hem us in as we won't attack. Plant the city, we have copper, we see 2 sources close. Chances are pretty decent one or both Sarantium and Horde lack one.

We have the advantage for now, we HAVE copper units, there's no evidence they do, or even know bronze working. Chop and axe, build a settler (perhaps even chopping that), and park that settler/axe right on their border while we build more troops to play defense.

Are we a long term threat now? YES. Course, we already were. I really don't think we have the luxury of not being extremely aggressive with our city placement.

[Kloreep]

We have the advantage for now. But Ozzy-1st site will not do anything to help us maintain it. The only thing really going for it is the gold, and to actually take advantage of that, we need a mine. That means bringing a worker across the unsettled territory between AB and Ozzy-1st site; and even once that's done, it's really a help to commerce only, which does not directly help our expansion - not until we get high in city maintenance costs, which shouldn't happen with our first few cities. In short, Ozzy-1st will be a lackluster +1 food, +2 hammers site (+3 with mine on gold) that will have difficulty growing and will produce only a trickle of shields in the early game. Compare this to Ozzy-2nd site, which can have 4 hammers from the stone if we research masonry and build a quarry (the latter will not require our worker to enter hostile territory once the city is settled), has 2 hammers to start with anyway (so 6 hammers at pop 1 with a quarry, compared to 2-3 hammers at pop 1 with Ozzy-1st), and has good potential for growth in the long term once we can improve the pigs & wheat (again, the worker won't be in much danger once this site's borders expand). And Ozzy-2nd does seal the northern border just like Ozzy-1st, it just doesn't claim Ozzy-1st site.

I grant you that Ozzy-1st would be good to have. For a third city it might be good, particulary if the second city is Ozzy-2nd, giving it a true connection to AB through Merc territory. But as a second city I think it will largely waste potential for quick set-up of a barracks city in favor of a land grab that will, compared to what Ozzy-2nd also accomplishes, amount to gaining a single city site.

[OzzyKP]

Simply roping off the penninsula doesn't really get us anywhere. We only have room for one respectable city north of us, so worrying about someone taking our penninsula is kinda worthless.

More importantly we need to worry about the land south of us, south of our penninsula. If we are too conservative we could just end up bottled up in our penninsula. I think my 1st city spot does a much better job of accomplishing that.

I am strongly with Uno on this. It is definitely important we take this spot. We will absolutely be safe. Not only do we have bronze working, but we have a worker built and a copper connected with troops on the way. That is huge.

- As we are the only city to stay at size 1 it is clear we are the only civ with a worker right now (or at least the first definitely).
- We are the only one out of our two neighbors who have bronze.
- They may or may not have copper.

If they did have copper, they need bronze working first, then they have to build a worker, then they have to hook it up. It might not be as close as ours. Maybe they can only get copper from a second city.

All of this gives us a significant edge that I think a city at the 1st spot is very safe in the short to medium term. Short term the spear should be well enough to defend it. If people wanted to send our first axe there too (not a bad idea) then it'd be locked up tight for a while.

Will it be as powerful long term as the 2nd spot? No. But I think for now it would be a great city to have. Gold is very, very powerful in the early game. A mined gold gives almost as much gold as the palace. That'll help out our tech greatly and boost us over the others. Build that city, have it start production on a fishing boat right away (assuming we have fishing) and mine/road the gold.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
We only have room for one respectable city north of us, so worrying about someone taking our penninsula is kinda worthless.

True.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
More importantly we need to worry about the land south of us, south of our penninsula. If we are too conservative we could just end up bottled up in our penninsula.

Agreed.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I think my 1st city spot does a much better job of accomplishing that.

At the moment, the only way I see us actually being trapped from southern expansion is if Sarantium pulls as aggressive a settlement vs. us as 1st site is vs. them. And since they're not creative, they will have a much tougher time creating true seals on our expansion anywhere but close in to their capitol (where it's easier to connect to their capitol, but even then they have to rely on luck to spread Buddhism to their city and then wait another 10 turns for border expansion. We get borders 5 turns after settlement without trouble). I'm not concerned about being able to expand south at the moment, only with delineating the west-east border with Sarantium.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I am strongly with Uno on this. It is definitely important we take this spot. We will absolutely be safe. Not only do we have bronze working, but we have a worker built and a copper connected with troops on the way.

Where are these troops coming from?

We are only just about to get our first bronze unit, the spear. Afterwards we'll be building a settler & axe. What does Alpha Base do after that? We have some room in its health & happiness stats for growth, so we can afford to let it grow in the short term as it builds military units, but I think ideally we'll make use of its food supplies to churn out settlers and workers most of the time in this early game. The only limit on that is troops to protect these builds. So... the larger the supply of troops to free up AB for pop units, the faster we can get settlers and workers out the door. The fewer units we get from elsewhere, the more the onus falls on AB to produce protection for its settlers, and we won't be able to insert settler and worker builds as often. This is my main concern with sending our first new settler out to a hammer-poor site, no matter the other benefits it may bring.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
- As we are the only city to stay at size 1 it is clear we are the only civ with a worker right now (or at least the first definitely).

I'm not sure we showed up on the Top 5 list for others. Others may be able to make a good guess based on score or other factors, but I don't think anyone can be 100% certain of this.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
All of this gives us a significant edge that I think a city at the 1st spot is very safe in the short to medium term. Short term the spear should be well enough to defend it.

I agree it should be safe in the short term, that is next 30 turns or so (though only in the short term). I'm worried we will be delaying a possible explosion of settlers from AB, though; see below.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If people wanted to send our first axe there too (not a bad idea) then it'd be locked up tight for a while.

Which means another military unit needed for AB and successive settlers... see below.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Will it be as powerful long term as the 2nd spot? No. But I think for now it would be a great city to have. Gold is very, very powerful in the early game. A mined gold gives almost as much gold as the palace. That'll help out our tech greatly and boost us over the others. Build that city, have it start production on a fishing boat right away (assuming we have fishing) and mine/road the gold.

It'll be great for gold, yes. But not for hammers. And a fishing boat costs almost as much as the axe/spear that could be built instead. If we send our settler all the way down to 1st site, and set it on a fishing boat right after plunking the city down, there will be no "troops on the way" for a while yet except those we build in AB. And with every military unit that has to be gotten from AB, further settlers and our 3rd, 4th, and 5th cities and the workers they'll need are pushed farther into the future.

[OzzyKP]

It doesn't seem like it'd be that bad. Send the settler with our spear. Build two axes. Send one to the 1st site, and keep one at AB. Then build a settler. Then another axe. Rinse & repeat.

[Kloreep]

It currently takes 5 turns to finish an axe (6 hammers * 6=36, one more hammer than needed for an axeman). If one adds to those hammers the food that will be stored up towards growth rather than a settler when at size 3 (also 6) an axeman build takes 72 settler build units to construct, or over half its cost of 100. So, each settler/escort pair in AB at size 3 will take nearly 1 and 3/4 the time it would.

To be fair, Pop 4 easily brings us another hammer (via grassland forest) and at 7 hammers, the axe only takes 4 turns, so AB only loses 52 potential settler production units building an axe. So, once AB hits pop 4 (which it must if it keeps building axes) it'll only cost it half a settler to build an axe rather than 3/4s. But that's still a fair amount, especially when your second site could be producing 5-turn axemen as soon as the stone tile gets a quarry - and I think we could swing having the worker there to set it up soon after 2nd city's borders expand to it, which would mean we'd have it to that 6-hammer production for 5-turn axemen under 15 turns after settling.

So, if 2nd site is the city we found with the upcoming settler, I think we could get away with having AB only produce one more axeman before going exclusively to settlers and workers. If we settle 1st site first, AB has to produce not only another axe pair for the settler for 2nd site or something with similar shield production, but the settler after that probably won't be able to be supplied with protection from anywhere but AB. Thus, AB ends up building another axeman, costing us about an extra 1/2 a settler (the axe build for the second settler out of AB should bring about growth to pop 4).

Hmm, one possible solution that occurs to me though... if we could time another chop by the worker to coincide with an axe build, we could speed it up and reduce the number of turns that the food goes to growth rather than a settler. That would reduce the cost of the axe as measured in settler production.

[polarnomad]

Alternatively we could send the settler down with the spear and settle, build the axe, send it down to number 2 and return the spear to Alpha Base. Number 2 would provide a buffer to incoming enemies and also advance warning of any movement in the area, so the exchange of troops *might* not be that risky.