17-02-2005 02:22									#1
	City Planning Thread Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

We need one centralized thread for city planning and discussion.

There was discussion in the 3900 thread about changing our planned city placement to include a canal city. Given that proposal, I present to you an adjusted city plan that is based on a 3-spacing scheme.

3-spacing is done for defensive purposes, so units can move from city to city in 1 turn.

Here is the proposed layout:


This plan does not build on any hillsides, but keeps the hills for future mining and higher production down the road. It includeds 2 coastal sites and a canal site.

However, there is a 4 space gap between the yellow site and the site of our 2nd city ... not sure how to build in the area between those two sites right now.

--Togas

	17-02-2005 02:25									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

One unrelated request ... can we change the name of our capital? Ravnos doesn't fit. Its' a gypsy vampire clan of little importance.

We should change our capital city name to Transylvania.

--Togas

	17-02-2005 03:34									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Name change noted.

You city scheme looks pretty closely packed. It will hamper growth when we get mediavel. It also means we wasted a turn by moving to the hill.

3 spacing does make defence much easier, but the river will already cause some problem there.

I would rather settle a little further out and trust that we can plan ahead for an effective defence.

	17-02-2005 03:41									#4
	Support Apolyton

I like tight spacing, especially in MP, especially on a small map. We need cities to allow for more free units and sheild production. We don't need much food, since we can harness the northern flood plains for worker pumps.

	17-02-2005 05:04									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Tight spacing is definitely the way to go in MP, that's for sure Togas' plan looks pretty solid, barring any new map uncoverings.

	18-02-2005 03:08									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

One thing I probably should mention is that tight spacing gets you more cities overall, giving us more commerce and more unit support, as well as more production centers. It puts more actual tiles to work faster, allowing us to work all of the tiles in our central and less corrupt area.

Tight spacing isn't a problem in the mideval age. At that point city sizes are still below 10 and still (primarily) working just the circle of tiles around the city. And when it becomes a problem in the future (Industrial?) we will basicly stunt the growth of weaker cities to allow for key cities to grow larger.

In my MP experience, tight builds produce more powerful, faster growing civs. Plus, keeping things centralized and focused reduces worker travel time and requires less defenders to adequately protect a group of cities.

--Togas

	18-02-2005 03:28									#7
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yep... tight spacing is the way to go in MP.