15-02-2005 01:22									#1
	Turn Orders: 3850bc Increase the size of your Attachments

Actions taken in 3900 BC

worker 1: finished roading, started on irrigating ivory
worker 2: still irrigating cow
worker 3: finished irrigating, started roading cow
warrior 1: moved another 4 exploring the west
warrior 2: moved another 6 exploring the east
settler 1: founded U2
settler 2: moved 6 (presumable city site)

AbbA (2F, 1S, 3C) building barracks in 6
3/20 in granary, 3/20 on barracks
workforce on cow 3F, 2S, 1C
U2 (2F, 1S, 1C) started building barracks in 10
0/20 in granary, 0/20 on barracks
workforce on bonus grass 2F, 1S, -C

pottery @ 90% science in 10 turns.
Treasury @ 7 (+0)

Remarks
- All civilizations have founded at least 1 city
- We lost 3 gold in first turn, due to unit costs. With an extra city, we now run break even.
- Irrigation on the cow seems to have yielded 3 food even before it was finished. 1 worker is still assigned to (finishing) irrigation. As the other could be assigned to roading, no worker turn has been lost. For both growth (food) and barracks (shields) we now need 3*5+2, which allows for 1 turn on the ivory source for extra commerce.
- I like the tile where our warrior 2 is at, as a city site (seaside, river, lux, forest, grass). As we’ve only spotted 1 floodplain (3F upon irrigation under despotism, not really “pump” material) on the remaining first choice city site, I would like to hear other voices on having the 3rd city over there.

Proposal for actions in 3850 BC

worker 1: continue irrigating ivory
worker 2: wait for worker 3 to finish and move 32 (now that we’re going to skip the chopping for the barracks due to the extra shield for the cow, connecting the cities shifts up in priority)
worker 3: finish roading cow
warrior 1: move 3 exploring a little south
warrior 2: move 3 exploring a little south (floodplains?)
settler 2: move 6 or found “Nirvana”

Attachment: 3850 bc - right map.jpg
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).

Last edited by McMeadows on 17-02-2005 at 19:20

	15-02-2005 04:43									#2
	Re: Turn Orders: 3850bc Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows Proposal for actions in 3850 BC worker 1: continue irrigating ivory worker 2: wait for worker 3 to finish and move 32 (now that we’re going to skip the chopping for the barracks due to the extra shield for the cow, connecting the cities shifts up in priority) worker 3: finish roading cow warrior 1: move 3 exploring a little south warrior 2: move 3 exploring a little south (floodplains?) settler 2: move 6 or found “Nirvana”

Hmm. I like where it is at now, as that will actually turn out to be a very productive spot eventually (post-republic or monarchy or feudalism) with all those hills (rather than a worker pump, oh well). It is still our best bet for a worker pump in the short term -- not a ton of workers but at least every so often, it can maybe alternate worker-archer-worker-etc. -- and it will ultimately be a very high production city (and a decent chance for iron works if we make it that far!), being close enough to the capital to be a wonder producing city (again if the game works out that way).

I don't disagree with also producing a city (#4 or #5) up by the furs, possibly 8 from the warrior or 87 or something. It will still be a pretty good city, and there are indications of grassland up there. We could even build a camp on the warrior spot, eventually disbanding it in favor of a better city spot nearby that doesn't take away a square from a real city (Nirvana or whatever). But I think where settler #3 is right now is a better spot in the short term (faster growth, faster shields with all the BGs in its immediate radius).

Probably I suggest putting city #4 there, as it is a second luxury and lets us lower our luxury rate some. Perhaps if we haven't made first contact by 3500bc we should strongly consider building a settler with our capital to finish when it reaches size 5 ... as if we haven't made contact by that point, an archer rush will be silly (plenty of expansion room).

	15-02-2005 10:56									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Your production advantages do not really hold. The "fur" city would just as well have your treasured hills and bonus grass and above all has production boosting forest around. A possible Iron Works is no argument. That's a small chance in a far away future. I seem to have a different style of playing.
It's demo, so I will listen to the voices of the nation. I propose to move 2 with the settler now and settle on the plains. City nr 4 will be next to the fur. Best argument for me now would be to mention that it saves a movement turn. We'll improve your Iron Works chances, I see at least 3 bonus grass in the initial city radius and with fortune we might hit an extra floodplain south.

	16-02-2005 06:06									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by McMeadows Your production advantages do not really hold. The "fur" city would just as well have your treasured hills and bonus grass and above all has production boosting forest around. A possible Iron Works is no argument. That's a small chance in a far away future. I seem to have a different style of playing. It's demo, so I will listen to the voices of the nation. I propose to move 2 with the settler now and settle on the plains. City nr 4 will be next to the fur. Best argument for me now would be to mention that it saves a movement turn. We'll improve your Iron Works chances, I see at least 3 bonus grass in the initial city radius and with fortune we might hit an extra floodplain south.

Won't the new city be 1 square further from the capital, as well as 1 closer to U2, and thus sub-optimal? XxxX is optimal from what I recall ... and 1 square south is slightly more corrupt. Not a huge problem, but it might be the difference of a shield or so ... and the area south might have marginally lower food quantities (slightly more plains, at least one mountain, and possibility of desert), which is less beneficial for a hill city (which needs decent amounts of food-producing squares). Of course, we'd have to see a bit more of the area to be sure.

Otherwise i'd agree - plains is better than grassland for a hilly city.

OTOH I think that 8 from the warrior would be at least an equally useful spot to settle in. The proposed city 8 from the warrior would likely have more grassland, allowing it to be a second highly productive city using the mountain (possibly mountains) while still having a positive food balance. And it would have an extra hill to use for production later on.

I'll work up something in excel and post it in a bit explaining what i mean.

	16-02-2005 12:07									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Okay so i went ... overboard ... in this excel file, and hopefully retained its readability.

The main thrust is that, without doing anything other than naming squares that are definitely or likely (by map edge guessing) a certain type of land, I calculated the two cities in the respective positions.

I ignored the effects of the capital - which would affect both roughly equally, I think, and couldn't really guess, although Abba has so many good squares to the N and W that E/SE should be relatively left alone. I didn't touch any squares in its 9-sq radius but assumed the rest of the 21 sq radius to the E/SE/S were up for grabs. Same for U2.

The "North" position gives slightly more shields, overall, at size 12 for both cities, and slightly more commerce due to more coastal usage, while the South position gives slightly better middle size production (6-9). Both city pairs have a few missing squares from their known radius; south has 3 missing on the south end of "nirvana", while north has 2 missing on the north end of "beach boys".

What I didn't consider, and is worth considering, are two major factors:

1. Will the present cities use squares I assumed were used by Nirvana/BB?

2. Will future cities use squares ^^?

I think the argument tends to favor the north pair of cities:

• It allows for a slightly higher production maximum (23 versus 21) and slightly more shields (37 vs 36) and trade (47 to 43)
  
• The missing squares are more likely to favor the north both in what they replace (coast,coast vs desert,plains) and in what they are likely to be (grassland or forest or hills vs. desert or plains); likely +2-+4 bonus to production of the northern city, and possibly useful grassland for food.
  
• Nirvana will be more productive very early on with the northern location, as it gets a second Bonus Grassland fairly early, that the southern location never gets. That +1 shield is nice, and not factored in on the spreadsheet in the combo portion (it's assumed BB will be built immediately, which it won't.)
  

At the same time, the northern squares are more likely to be used by a successful 3rd city while the southern ones are more likely to be useless (desert there will prevent a successful city from emerging). (Point 2 above.)

But i don't think it's a huge difference, either. 1 shield (possibly 5 at most) does not a kingdom break, nor does 4 commerce (would go down to +2 or +0 if the other two squares merit use to the north). So if after all this convincing you're still convinced of the southern pair, then go for it.

Don't forget we have a fur to the SW as well, so that shouldn't be the main consideration in building this city. Honestly it's not that useful of a city ("Beach Boys" as i call it) until later on - it is hard to get to be productive, and it steals a bonus grassland from Nirvana if we use the northern pair (as stated above.) The southern pair does not allow Nirvana to reach this BG so that doesn't matter much.

Attachment: nirvana_beachboys_citycalcs.xls
This has been downloaded 10 time(s).

	16-02-2005 12:11									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

Info on how to read that spreadsheet:

• Use the Final Data tab to see the production values at sizes 3 6 9 and 12.
  
• Final Data is arranged with the Nirvana cities at the top, in yellow and green (north vs. south), and the Beach Boy cities at the bottom, in orange and blue (north vs south).
  
• Final Data has the left half with "maximum" (ie without the other city being there at all) and then the right half has "constrained", with me assigning each square to a unique owner.
  
• Both despotism and monarchy are considered here. IE, no Std Tile Penalty.
  
• Grayed out sections: Above 6 is unlikely in a despotism (time and food constraints) so I don't think we should consider >6 in despotism.
  
• Other tabs show the various calcs (specific breakdown for each city concept), and the last tab shows an excelized map, with coverages shown in color (brighter color are the base 9 squares and lighter are the 21 sq radius). The map of the 'constrained' version is on the far right side, and that shows how the squares are allocated.
  

	16-02-2005 16:45									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Let me get back to you after I look at the download

	16-02-2005 20:56									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

It was quite a job getting through your info and I must admit I'm still only grasping the main points you make. You're refering to production, food and commerce capacity. As the city site comparisson only comprises the shift of a few tiles, it's not suprisingly that these are comparable.

With the "south" options I have a few arguments:
-Nirvana is to have an early chop available
-BeachBoys is to have 2 bonuss grass available from the start. 1 shared with Nirvana
-I think the relative city locations are beneficial to use the bonuss grass's most efficient and territory in general.

	17-02-2005 01:26									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I haven't waded into snoop's analysis yet, but my gut feeling is that the exact spot of the warrior right now would be the best option for the city. It is the exact same corruption distance from the capital as U2 and also allows us sea access when we get alphabet for early exploration.

Plus it has immediate bonus grassland and forest chop capability for quicker production since we didn't settle the other forest chop city to the west of Abba.

Once I have a chance to work on my sim then I'll know for sure, but that is just my gut opinion that it is a better location.

BTW, can whomever did the past few turns post an exact list of actions taken in both turns? It will be necessary for my sim. Thanks.

	17-02-2005 01:28									#10
	Got spare money?

has been done...
read first post

	17-02-2005 01:33									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Oh, I actually meant "can you put it in the moves thread?" I can edit it in myself too I suppose but I don't like editing other people's posts unless absolutely necessary.

As time goes on though it will be more necessary to have a list of each move for each turn in one thread so that we don't have to open up 50 threads to figure out what has been done.

	17-02-2005 02:41									#12
	half way Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Same procedure as before. I go to sleep and leave a chance to the other time zone people to give some last minute input.

Sofar,

both warriors moved south (2), which extended the view a little
worker 3 moved to hill (32)

In the (European) morning, either the settler will move 2 or found Nirvana...

Last call... Let them gut feelings and number crunching fill the forum...

Goodnight

Attachment: 3850 bc - map.jpg
This has been downloaded 9 time(s).

	17-02-2005 02:46									#13
	Suffering from ads?

I still think the coastal hill near the fur is better, but again that is my gut feeling and not backed up by numbers.

	17-02-2005 04:48									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Rhothaerill I haven't waded into snoop's analysis yet, but my gut feeling is that the exact spot of the warrior right now would be the best option for the city. It is the exact same corruption distance from the capital as U2 and also allows us sea access when we get alphabet for early exploration. Plus it has immediate bonus grassland and forest chop capability for quicker production since we didn't settle the other forest chop city to the west of Abba. Once I have a chance to work on my sim then I'll know for sure, but that is just my gut opinion that it is a better location. BTW, can whomever did the past few turns post an exact list of actions taken in both turns? It will be necessary for my sim. Thanks.

Do you mean settle city 3 there as opposed to city 3 either in place or 1 south of that square? I have to disagree with that because there is too much work needed to improve that city - in my sims I noticed that you quickly run out of squares to use that aren't forest (your *second* square would be optimally a forest chopped down). I'd rather settle a 4th or 5th or whatever city there, when we have more free workers ... the spot I suggest has 2 BG's immediately available to it, and even mcm's suggestion has 1 BG and plenty of grasslands on rivers and plains on rivers and such ...