600bc

[binTravkin]

Ok, current votes in the city dispute:

4 for the city on warrior (Impaler, me, Maniac, Kata)
3 settling where it is (Forester, N35t0r, mart)

We should be done voting by the evening, so turn can be sent on.

[N35t0r]

Okay, my point is that I think wheat + plains hill is better than the fish. Also, eventually total commerce should be more o less equal (counting possible specialists) with a (much) better shield output for the original location.

The city site that'd get the wheat if we founded the fish + fish city would be really low on our city priority list, since we'll have all nana lands to settle, and by that time I think that it will not pay off to found the city there in the first place...

[N35t0r]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Put the city on the warrior is my first instinct. It looks like a good shield city. In case of tie, i give my vote to the turnplayer to decide

Hmm? the original city site gets better spt, as it has a plains hill to work (4spt if mined)

[binTravkin]

I just realized that a single coastal city pays off much better than Great Library - cost is 2 times less and the raw commerce amount gained is 35+ just by working the coast.
Even counting the upkeep it's worth to build more of them.

I dont remember the upkeep jump 7->8 or 8->9 cities, but we should certainly build one more settler for coastal settling asap!

[Lacero]

It seems like moving the city is better early on, as you can get more food per tile worked, but later on it'll be worse due to the three mountains. Later on it'll generate more than enough commerce to offset it's upkeep and it lets us squeeze another city in, so I say build it on the warrior.

[Lacero]

gpp and GL denial are the other reasons we're building it. Keep Beijing on the GL path (we've moved from currency now, it's a waste of research time to stop) and if we win as eaisly as we think we will one of the unit factories can become our settler factory. Better to build with hammers anyway due to bonues (isn't it?)

[binTravkin]

Well, I'm not really disputing the decision about Library, Im just saying that we should really be more willing to pay the upkeep for more coastal cities, as it will quickly pay off and over once they have lighthouse and granary.

[binTravkin]

Ok, that makes 5:3 in favor of 2 fish site

Nice avatar, Lacero btw

I experimented a bit with the upkeep table, going over 7 cities gives us 6, then 7 and 8 upkeep per additional city, at which point courthouses become both needed and usable (before this point, upkeep in most cities is so small that courthouses have very little effect).

one of the unit factories can become over settler factory

Yes, Tassagrad could be building a settler after current chuko, while Xian could do worker after it's done with missionaries - we'll need more workers soon to keep up with growing cities and to do improvements Banana territory lacks.

I think a city build plan of another city each ~10 turns should be adopted until the moment we've got courthouses and FP at Bananapolis.
That would make us have 8 cities by the courthouses with total of 30 upkeep and some 50+g (and growing 5+g each 3-4 turns) commerce more and continent west of the river mostly settled.
After that we'll expierence a pause in settling as most cities will be doing courthouses and then we can go on an even bigger spree of settling.

[Lacero]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Nice avatar, Lacero btw

I need to add some transparency to the white outside the circle now I'm at work and have photoshop I'm looking forward to what bethesda do, although some of their AI stuff sounds as ambitious as what they promised for Oblivion, which is a bad thing.

I think a city build plan of another city each ~10 turns should be adopted until the moment we've got courthouses and FP at Bananapolis.
That would make us have 8 cities by the courthouses with total of 30 upkeep and some 50+g (and growing 5+g each 3-4 turns) commerce more and continent west of the river mostly settled.
After that we'll expierence a pause in settling as most cities will be doing courthouses and then we can go on an even bigger spree of settling.

Sounds like a good plan, we need to seal off the south with an eye on a future war with GS. Force them to use transports and then counter with our navy. It won't happen until the end game I expect but we need to plan ahead.

[PJayTycy]

so, I'll add my vote to put the city on the warrior, that gives 6 vs 3, so that issue is +/- done.



For the scout, you suggest to move it on the forested hill next to the warrior and the city. If banana has a warrior in the city too, we will almost certainly lose our scout. Even if they have no warrior now, they can always whip one and use it immediately. So, I vote against going up that forested hill. We will probably have to continue running around moving in/out their culture constantly, but that keeps their warriors busy down south, unable to come to the rescue in the north.

[binTravkin]

Ok, suggestions for scout paths?

[binTravkin]

Btw, I really dont think there's another warrior as since we last checked that city the rival min soldier count hasnt changed and rival min must be Banana.

The rational arguments are against leaving scout there though:

- if we want to disrupt their production we can do so without endangering the scout (running in an out of there)
- they still have more chance to win then us and their distraction for one more turn due to attacking us only gives them 1 less turn fortification while can give +10% strength

EDIT: Oh, well, except for the rational argument to monitor unit buildup there, of course

[-SafaN-]

finished

[PJayTycy]

The only move I can think of, is to move the scout 2 tiles north. It's not a good alternative though, maybe someone else can give a better one.

Where would you move if you had to runaway bt?

[PJayTycy]

Originally posted by -SafaN-
finished

so, where did you move the scout to ?