RESOLUTION: Settling at the potato site?

[mapfi]

I'm convinced that the tile s-e of our capital, just below the potato on the river is the ideal settling site. It will provide us with growth and we desperately need to grow now.

Other options would be north of the coal, also on the river, or somewhere north of the hills where Dave stands now. While I think the hills are just too far away the decision between potato and coal site is one growth vs. production.
The tile we would settle on is the same both times, it would give us 20 Food, 5 Production and 10 Gold points. So the other 8 tiles are important. From them we get city size/6 * the full amount of all 8 tiles. So in the beginning we would get the tile we're on plus 1/6 of the radius. (If you don't know how the system works -> FAQ)

8 tiles around south of the potato:
Total 110 Food, 55 Production, 50 Gold

8 tiles around north of the coal:
Total 45 Food, 105 Production, 50 Gold

So it's pretty clear - with the potato site we will grow twice as fast, while with the coal site we will produce twice as fast.

I'm convinced that we need growth first and that the coal site should be the location of our third city - that's why I'm proposing the following resolution:

The newly built settler is to settle on the river tile south of the potato.

Voting ends February 3rd, 2205 GMT.

[Frozzy]

Screenshot?

[mapfi]

Sorry - look into the debating thread about this:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=75403

[HuangShang]

dont we need an exact location?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

the potato site is to near to our existing cities (overlapping as soon either of them reaches a range of 3). in addition, that area should be explored better before placing a city.


in contrast the coal site's borders would perfectly fit in with our current ones. that site is still fast accessible from goodland via the river. it wields enourmous production for units and/or wonders, even more once we start digging mines. and that site can be turned into better food with a few pw later in the game (hacking down the 2 forest tiles e.g.) while there is no way to turn the potatoe site into a good production place before we can terraform hills.

so it goes to a clear: NO

[Frozzy]

I concur with Zappy.

N.O.

[Maquiladora]

Growth is more important.

[MrBaggins]

I vote for growth



(I.E. vote YES)

[centrifuge]

You bet!!!!! I settled on a potato site.... (Ummm, inside joke with myself I guess. I live in Idaho... It's famous for it's potatos )

[Martin Gühmann]

I think we need a unit production base, so 105 production vs 55 production means that we need at the coal spot only approximatly half the time for a new unit like at the potato spot. Therefore the answer is NO.

-Martin

[MrBaggins]

Its not that simple, Martin... we work 3 squares... and 4 squares and so on and so forth... quicker... with the potato site... firstly cos the site gets settled earlier... secondly because the growth of the city is just plain quicker.

We will not only be increasing production... but commerce and hence science too... vital for further developments.

The potato site can and will overtake the coal site, in the short term. A vote for the potato is a vote for progress.

MrBaggins

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
firstly cos the site gets settled earlier... MrBaggins

yes, in 5 turns instead of 7, thats a real lousy argument

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Its not that simple, Martin... we work 3 squares... and 4 squares and so on and so forth...

I don't know what you mean with squares.

Originally posted by MrBaggins
firstly cos the site gets settled earlier...

As Zaphod Beeblebrox only two turns aren't a real argument.

Originally posted by MrBaggins
We will not only be increasing production... but commerce and hence science too... vital for further developments.

Also the city on the coal site will grow and increase its production and grows and commerce. To increase its grows speed we could use farmers. Then we have also there a big city faster, too. And of course a more productive one as at the potato site, unless we would put around the potato city a lot of mines, but this will take a while, in the mean time we could have built a lot of units in the coal city.

So a vote against the potato city is a vote for units. And we need units for our defence and for our empire expansion.

-Martin

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
I don't know what you mean with squares.

He means because the city will grow faster near the potato, we'll work more tiles faster as we grow, so growth is the ultimate goal, rather than short term production.

And whats the thoughts on placing a farm there to settle on? Or is that cheating now?

[MrBaggins]

size 1 = 1/6 * 8 = 8/6ths + center
size 2 = 2/6 * 8 = 16/6ths + center
size 3 = 3/6 * 8 = 24/6ths + center


At size 1, we work the equivilent of 2 1/3 'civ squares' including the center
At size 2, we work the equivalent of 3 2/3 'civ squares' including the center
At size 3, we work the equivalent of 5 'civ square' including the center

Growth is remarkably profitable.

We *could* use a farmer specialists to make up for the lacking growth of the 'coal' site, but that will mean... much less science... much less gold. We could do the same tactic with the potato site, and grow EVEN QUICKER.

Plus... if we want to build more settlers, we don't want a site with slow growth.