09-11-2003 20:54									#1
	Debate on the proposed City Placement Plan Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Because I have not seen any real debate as to the General Overall City Placement Plan #1 in the Settling old CDG and GCA lands thread, I'm starting it here.

PLEASE, when refering to a site, use the numbering that I currently have for them.

As MoI, I need to get a consensus as to what the team thinks of this placement plan AND any further suggestions as to any changes.

To keep this thread from using too much download time for people without Broadband Access, PLEASE post any maps in that other thread. I will also do the same.

Form of suggestions I would like to see:
Move site 17 to 3 of shown place.

After we have had sufficient debate time and depending on feedback in this thread, I will post a poll that will finalize the placement plan(s).

MoI E_T

	10-11-2003 05:56									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I will look at it more closely in the near future, but for now, your plan looks fine.

	10-11-2003 06:13									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

BF, we are running out of time on some of this, with Cuido about to be Abandoned. The place it's going is one of the key locations (Site 17 on that map).

MoI E_T

	10-11-2003 06:16									#4
	Got spare money?

Yes, I know, that is why I said "near" future.

	11-11-2003 04:44									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'd kind of like to wait until we either capture Catchopolis intact or it's abandoded before deciding.

	13-11-2003 08:06									#6
	Support Apolyton

A few observations from myself brought up in chat...

-tighter than I would do it but I really don't care about that

-City #15 I believe is basically useless where it is. I say cut it out and save on # of cities corruption. #1,2,16 look like they are going to grow large with fresh water so I would say leave #15 out and free up tiles for the biggies.

-#23 I would move NW so we can eventually use more coastal tiles. A counter argument is leave it where it is would be to hook up the furs instantly. Depends whether we want to go long term or short term benefit for the placement.

	15-11-2003 20:11									#7
	Remove this text

bumping this thread

E_T

	16-11-2003 00:25									#8
	Put an end to popups!

It is more crowded than I would make it in some areas. Is anyone else going to try this?

	16-11-2003 00:55									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I already did. It's in another thread and it is less crowded.

Oh, and here's the link to that post. link

Last edited by BigFree on 16-11-2003 at 01:01

	16-11-2003 01:14									#10
	Put an end to popups!

That was also before we had known what CGN and GWT had in the way of lands. After that, it was desided that a bit closer approch (slightly more packed, but not shoulder to shoulder) would be better economically over the long haul. We are playing to our Commercial streights and the terrain that we have to deal with.

E_T

	16-11-2003 12:54									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I've looked and I agree with E_T on this one. Especially because we have an advantage as a commercial civ, this very well might be the way to go.

	16-11-2003 13:31									#12
	Remove this text

Commerical should favour some larger cites with lower corruption, shouldn't it?

The beginning is where you want many cities cranking workers and units. The end is where you want a couple of big cities cranking nukes and or SS components.

Balance. It's all a question of balance, and who manages to get the right mix.

	16-11-2003 13:55									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I worked alot on my set up I posted. It is about balance as nye states.

Too many cities, too close together is not a good thing, trust me. Being Commercial does not fix that. Too many cities equal high corruption/waste rates no matter how close they are to the Capital and FP as an average accross your Civ.

Last I checked, Dom supported my plan. Unless he sees something that he has not commented on lately then I think the looser packed plan I have is best.

I previously let my plan fall by the way side because our plans have changed so often. Especially in terms of our GA. And also because I would like to see ET put a good plan together.

Without running any numbers, I can see that ET has too many cities planned for this map. This is a "Standard" map. You get to a point where if you add more cities the overall corruption rate is increased. You actually lose commerce and production because of it.

	16-11-2003 14:00									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I will certainly and STRONGLY agree that a looser packed plan is basically always better if you have 100% tile usage or close to 100% tile usage. The problem, as Dominae once explained to me when I had the contrary position, is that 100% tile usage of your territory is reached relatively late in the game, so a tighter city spacing that gives higher tile usage earlier may well be worth the increased OCN-related corruption for the outlying cities of that tighter plan.

I know it would be a true ***** to test out, but is there any chance that someone could run numbers on how many shields and gold gained/lost in each plan over the course of the rest of a typical game for lack of tile use -vs- increased corruption and waste? Is there any way to just estimate that for each?

EDIT: Two other factors to consider if such an analysis was done. First, the additional cities under E_T's plan would cost an additional 2 pop and 30 shields each to build from their founding cities (if there's a way to abstract that, excellent).

Second, I'm assuming that it's possible that E_T's plan might be superior in the short haul and BF's plan would eventually catch up and surpass it. If this is true at all (one plan might simply be superior to the other across the board, either because the extra settlers/pop cost more or the lack of tile usage at some midpoint will end up costing more), then could we determine the rough estimate point at which one plan would likely catch up to the other? That might play an important role in our decision.

Last edited by Arnelos on 16-11-2003 at 14:07

	16-11-2003 14:09									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Tighter packed for the early game, yes, but not so many cities.

I'm not saying we don't want to pack tightly around the Palace as we already have done. But, now is the time to consider the long term effects of our decisions we'll be making now. How may cities should we settle compared to how tight/loose they are packed is the question. The answer is that too many cities lead to too much corruption, period. We have to think in terms of map size in order to come to a conclusion about corruption factors.

	16-11-2003 14:56									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Keep in mind that a lot of this plan will be established by the time if the Palace jump. I have designed a .bix file for use in modelling Palace jumps with various numbers of new towns up. With our current number of villages all depopulated to 4 or lower population, New Capturedopolis would need to be size 7 with 4 nearby villages. With the current populations maintained it would need to be size 7 with 12 villages around, or size 8 with 9 villages, size 9 with 6 villages etc.

The more villages we build within 8 tiles of places like Nana, Ming, Hispanica and BF, the more we will need to build near Caughtopolis, the higher pop Caughtopolis will need or the LESS pop all of our core cities will need to pull of the Palace jump to Caughtopolis.

With this thought, it is clear we must either inflate some towns in old GCA to city size for the jump, or just concentrate on more widely spread villages nearer our current core before the jump. THEN we can fill in a little more closely packed.

	16-11-2003 20:08									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If you look, the new core in the south isn't a tightly packed as it is up north.

Also, I have reconsidered site #15 and it won't get built.

Part of this spacing takes place in areas that have good potenential growth, over time, wereas, a few, in the last phase, are on land that will be size limited until they either get a Harbor AND/OR Railroads.

Granted, Until the Palace is moved, all of the southern cities will be fully corrupt. That will be from distance more than OCN. With the FP being built, the OCN factor will decreace by a fair amount BUT the Distance part will still be the overriding factor.

After the Palace move, the number of cities that are Palace Centric will be 12 (well within the Modified OCN of 20). Our FP core will have 27 cities around it. BUT, because of the limitations provided by the terrain in the south, out FP outlying cities will have reduced Ranks, because of that one little bug, so the only corruption factor that will really bother them is distance.

And Don't forget that Lux is not a permenent city.

All in all, without having any more of our contenent to play with, this is our best bet for the next couple of ages.

MoI E_T

	16-11-2003 20:09									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There are some good points in this thread. Let's try to sum them up:

Factors that influence our decisions on City Spacing
These are general factors, so I didn't include specific things like "build on the coast so we can use the fish tile".
I also include some reasons why a factor is important.

1. Settler build capacity
   Obviously, if we want to build more cities, we'll need more settlers.
   
2. Map size
   The Map size dtermines the Optimal City Number (OCN) used in the corruption formula.
   
3. The fact that we are Commercial
   Commercial should favour some larger cites with lower corruption.
   
4. Expected tile usage through the ages
   When can we reach 100% tile usage?
   
5. Terrain layout
   Do we want to have 100% tile usage if the terrain is bad?
   
6. Expected corruption values
   How big is the difference in corruption values in the different plans? For this, we'll need the corruption formula.
   
7. Expected build queues
   When does which city build what? When building cheap things, we can do with small cities. But for expensive builds, we'll need bigger ones.
   
8. Golden Age plans
   This might influence our Rex plans;
   
9. Rex plans
   If we're going to Rex (and spread out), a different spacing might be in order than when we would just build a strong core.
   
10. Palace Jump / FP build plans
    Where do our Palace and FP end up?
    
11. Wonder build plans
    Certain wonders (e.g. Sun Tzu) give an advantage if you have many cities.
    
12. War plans
    If we're going to war again soon after GCA, we'll probably need more units, favoring a tighter city spacing.
    

Last edited by BigFurryMonster on 16-11-2003 at 22:45

	29-11-2003 08:05									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

bump

E_T

	29-11-2003 23:01									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes, we definately want all permenat cities to reach size 7 as a Commerical civ for the 2 extra gold per turn per size 7 - 12 town.

	14-12-2003 22:20									#21
	Got spare money?

Bumping this, will post a poll shortly

MoI E_T

	15-12-2003 19:35									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The only suggestion I would make would be to make proposed sites 7 & 8 just one city, building it either on the incense hill at Tripoli 669, or on the jungle tile at Tripoli 699.

-Arrian

	15-12-2003 21:28									#23
	Put an end to popups!

sound good to me

Those 2 sities will be built around the 3rd phase of the plan, because they would be palace centric, while the palace is still at Apolyton. So no big deal on that consolidation until we need to think about it.

MoI E_T

	15-12-2003 21:50									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Cool. What phase are we in now (yeah, I know that sounds pretty ignorant)?

How long until FP completion? edit: most recent screenie shows 24, with city growth in 5(?), so I'd guess 20-24 turns (depending on whether or not the extra production from the next citizen is eaten by waste).

How long until Palace jump?

-Arrian