 |
Should we use this Settlement Plan for our next phase of expansion?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
18 |
81.82% |
| No - please give reasons why not |
   |
2 |
9.09% |
| Let the Banana decide where to settler |
   |
2 |
9.09% |
| Total: |
22 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
The first two screenshots below are of Arrian's two plans, mergine sites 7 and 8 into one site either at the Incense Hills or the Jungle NW of it. The third screenshot is of my proposal for that area.
As you can see, in both Arrian's plans the one city-site could use up to 13 tiles without interference from neighboring cities. That's one more than size 12.
In my plan (slightly different from E_T's original), the southeastern city-site has access to 10 tiles without interference, while the northwestern one has access to 8 (again, without inteference). The two cities would split the two middle tiles, so those numbers can be updated to 11 and 9. Finally, the northwestern city-site would probably use the tiles marked with red dots, since they would be far more productive to it than the non-coastal Bananatopia. This gives a grand total of 22 tiles.
So, my plan accesses 9 more tiles for productive use than Arrian's, and does so without requiring Hospitals.
quote:
But how much will corruption eat into the benifit from those coastal tiles? Is the amount of extra commerce coming in (after corruption) worth the cost of building the extra city, and the improvements in it?
|
That's a question even alexman would have difficulty answering. But my gut instinct, in light of the analysis above, tells me that two sites is better than one here.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 17-12-2003 at 10:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Site 23 is where it's at, so that we don;t have to have a temple (or other cultural device) in BoP. The furs are right between those 3 cities (BoP, site 23 and New Catch). With all 3 of those cities present, the cultural border will expand to encompass the Furs tile.
Site 14 is on a hill, and were it's at, it will have access to a maximum of 4 grassland (after jungle is cleared) tiles. Moving 1 south will remove 2 of those from it's ability to use them for growth. Also, if we do give Equil to CFC, it will be one of the border cities.
Also, granted, more coast is better for trade, but we first have to build Harbors (80 sheilds) in those cities, before we can make an effective use of them. Shoot, we don't even have any harbors in any of our core cities yet, and won't have any for a bit more time.
And as for the Temp city (Lux), it will be deleted sometime, but not immediately, as it's still able to crank out 3 workers every turn. When Karina & Ming both get an Aquaduct and Big Bend gets much larger, them it will likely go. But for now, it's serving a major purpose.
MoI E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by E_T
Site 23 is where it's at, so that we don;t have to have a temple (or other cultural device) in BoP. The furs are right between those 3 cities (BoP, site 23 and New Catch). With all 3 of those cities present, the cultural border will expand to encompass the Furs tile.
|
Although getting a new Luxury will surely be beneficial in the short term, having better city placement will be better in the long run. If we really do want those Furs ASAP, why not invest in rushing a Temple (which should easily pay for itself by lowering our Luxury slider)? The other option is putting a temp city at site 23, and a permanent city two tiles NW, but that makes for a lot of Settlers which (I imagine) are a precious commodity for us right now.
quote:
Site 14 is on a hill, and were it's at, it will have access to a maximum of 4 grassland (after jungle is cleared) tiles. Moving 1 south will remove 2 of those from it's ability to use them for growth.
|
It is competing for these tiles with city-site 13. If you do not make good use of Coast tiles you lose out somewhere with your inland tiles.
quote:
Also, if we do give Equil to CFC, it will be one of the border cities.
|
Interesting point. Suggestion: let's not give CFC Equilibrium! Seriously now, I think we can mount a good defense around that area without a city at that location.
quote:
Also, granted, more coast is better for trade, but we first have to build Harbors (80 sheilds) in those cities, before we can make an effective use of them.
|
We also have to build 100-Shield Marketplaces and 100-Shield Aqueducts in our inland cities to make good use of those. That's Civ3. The Harbor requirement in coastal cities should not deter us from maximizing the land available to us, especially if we're in this for the long haul (and hopefully the win).
quote:
And as for the Temp city (Lux), it will be deleted sometime, but not immediately, as it's still able to crank out 3 workers every turn.
|
Wow, that's a lot of Workers! 
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, Dom, I guess you're right about 7 & 8. However, given the cost of building 2 cities & the improvements therein, I bet it won't be a big difference either way.
|
Actually, it does make a difference, so why not exploit it? This is the whole argument for tight city-spacing all over again! In any case, the cities in my proposal are 4 tiles apart...hardly "tight" spacing.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Although getting a new Luxury will surely be beneficial in the short term, having better city placement will be better in the long run. If we really do want those Furs ASAP, why not invest in rushing a Temple (which should easily pay for itself by lowering our Luxury slider)? The other option is putting a temp city at site 23, and a permanent city two tiles NW, but that makes for a lot of Settlers which (I imagine) are a precious commodity for us right now.
|
Well, Rushing a temple costs money (232 gold for a 1 turn Rush), which we don't have that much to work with (AND do Deficite Research), because we just don't have the cashflow right now. And Until the Palace is moved, we won't be building much with it, only 1 sheild per turn.
quote:
It is competing for these tiles with city-site 13. If you do not make good use of Coast tiles you lose out somewhere with your inland tiles.
|
Only 1 of those jungle tiles is in contention with site 13
quote:
Interesting point. Suggestion: let's not give CFC Equilibrium! Seriously now, I think we can mount a good defense around that area without a city at that location.
We also have to build 100-Shield Marketplaces and 100-Shield Aqueducts in our inland cities to make good use of those. That's Civ3. The Harbor requirement in coastal cities should not deter us from maximizing the land available to us, especially if we're in this for the long haul (and hopefully the win).
|
We could have site 23 as a temporary location, until the palace is moved. Well see, but it's needed for now.
quote:
Wow, that's a lot of Workers!
Dominae |
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by E_T
Well, Rushing a temple costs money (232 gold for a 1 turn Rush), which we don't have that much to work with (AND do Deficite Research), because we just don't have the cashflow right now.
|
Do you like positive cashflow for doing stuff like this? If (like me) you do, you should like more coastal cities, and spending the money to get them productive.
We are still in our "investment" phase, and we need to invest wisely. Placing a city at a poor location is not a good investment. Neither is rushing a Temple, when you consider Arrian's better suggestion: just build a Colony! The long-term benefits of having a coastal city two tiles NW of your site 23 far outweigh the cost of a Worker now.
Incidentally, what will hooking up that extra Luxury do for us right now? Will it allow us to lower our Lux slider? Or will it just let one city grow one pop bigger?
quote:
Only 1 of those jungle tiles is in contention with site 13.
|
Here's a slightly different option for that area. The green dots represent differences between E_T's proposal and mine (all light blue). The advantages are: 1) no unworkable tiles (E_T has one of these in his version), 2) less tile competition between cities, and 3) more effective use of coastal areas (this ties in with #2). The only disadvantage is that city-site will need an Aqueduct since it's no longer by a River, but again that's a small price to pay for better city quality in the long run.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
Due to the fact that we built site 1 a couple turns ago, I think E_T's plan for the west is best.
|
Doh. The tile two North of site 16 (currently Jungle, I believe) will not be used with that plan.
I still think site 14 should be as I marked it on the map above. With access to only two Grassland tiles (after the Junge is gone), city-site 14 can only work two Mountain tiles before running out of Food. So the loss of a Mountain tile in this case is not such a big deal, since it would never get used. What is gained is more coastal tiles, which support themselves and therefore are more useful to us in this case.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 19-12-2003 at 00:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Trip, you're not counting the overlap with city-sites 1 and 13. Especially in 1's case, I imagine it will be using at least two of the Jungle/Grassland tiles for itself (since it's already competing in all other directions). The further out your cities are from your core, the more "coastal" you want them to be, leaving the land tiles for those that can best make use of them.
Also, by my count, E_T's location has access to 6 water tiles, while the city-site that I'm proposing has access to 11 (some in competition with Equilibrium). I'm not sure where you got your +2 figure from.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Well, yes, this is the main last time to discuss this whole plan, but my figuring would be that 1 month of debate would have been sufficient and this would have been mostly a rubber stamp poll, for approval.
And, because there wasn't enough debate in the other thread, yes, we started to implement it on a very limited basis (while most of my settlers were being used for fort cities). Now that the war is almost over and the MoW won;t need any more settlers, I;ve already have cities going up soon.
Just to let everyone know, I have Founder headed to the site 23 location, with the first settler from Nana headed to the New Catch site. Next is the silks.... Then the Phase 2 cities.
MoI E_T
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2003 22:37
|