14-07-2005 19:28									#1
	Discussion Thread: City Site Planning Full PM-box? Change here!

Where do we want to build our Cities? What do we want to name them?

Do we want to go with a "temporary" (sometimes, is more permenent than temporary) Military Camp style first Settler city?

Do we want to use a primary 3 tile spacing or sould we use a different strategy. Last game, PAL used an interesting 3-4 Hybrid spacing that did them wonders. They had a very vital Core, no Military Camps (Unless it was so temporary, we never had seen it) and still very adiquate defensibility movemet. And that was an elimination round....

Thoughts and discussion are open. We should have something like 9 settlers (either built and moving to sites or already settled) within 60 turns, so lets get kracking....

E_T

	14-07-2005 20:03									#2
	Tired of ads?

Obviously, we should settle along Rivers. Hey, no-brainers have to be stated, too.

As to city spacing, CxxC seems to be working best. It can be wider sometimes (CxxxC) to allow size 12 cities, and tighter in other places (CxC, but never a city inside the city radius of another one) if there are obstructions. This is very general, but it is a bit early for specific locations, as we know little of our surroundings (even the Game tile migh not be the best thing to take first ).

I never use camps. What good does it do to make a city (a Settler and either Barracks or Granary) to disband it later?

	14-07-2005 22:01									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Can you post a screenshot of PAL's situation, and tell us why it was so wonderful?

	15-07-2005 16:48									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The tighter the better. Cities rarely grow beyond 12 and only a select group of them does so CxxC spacing seems best, with exeptions to catch a resource, expand territory, fortify defences, etc..

	15-07-2005 17:42									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

yep the city must have 12 tiles for there own and than with 0 food max prod- if that's is granted-> than it will be fine .

	20-07-2005 11:21									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by BigFurryMonster Can you post a screenshot of PAL's situation, and tell us why it was so wonderful?

BFM, if you want, you can go dig up one of the turns from the previous game.

But, I'll see if I can get a screenshot at sometime.

E_T

	29-07-2005 09:07									#7
	Spices at Apo 1-1-1 Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Note: I'll edit in a picture soon, see turn 9 thread until then

We have Spices for our first Lux.

How do we want to Incorporate them?

E_T

	29-07-2005 18:20									#8
	Re: Spices at Apo 1-1-1 Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by E_T We have Spices for our first Lux. How do we want to Incorporate them?

A nice rice dish, perhaps?

Or .. they'd go well with the meat from that Cow we ran into earlier!

	29-07-2005 22:22									#9
	Suffering from ads?

I'm all for CxxC but there are times where we may want to push our borders out faster and farther to make a land grab. We could push out 4 or 5 tiles from our core as long as we plan to have some surrounding cities within 3 tiles to provide defense. Since we should have no shortage of defenders this may allow us to grab more territory than other civs. We can fill in if we need to. It really depends on where the resources are that we want to control.

We also need to take into consideration what gov we're going to go for. With the number of units we're going to field we may go Monarchy.

	29-07-2005 22:24									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would delay final judgement until the borders expand next turn and we have continued exploration, but I would like to spice city to be at Apolyton 211, or at Apolyton 411

	01-08-2005 11:33									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

Looks like we have a nice worker pump at 8-8-8

Other future pump by game at 9-9-9?

	01-08-2005 12:21									#12
	Re: Spices at Apo 1-1-1 Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by E_T Note: I'll edit in a picture soon, see turn 9 thread until then We have Spices for our first Lux. How do we want to Incorporate them?

I would say with the fourth city. I see the second and third one at 22 and 999 (or 998) from the capital. Then the fourth one to claim the luxury. I think starting to set up the second pump and the (temporary) Barracks city should have priority. Except if we can not get by that long due to lack of MPs. Can we or can we not survive on MP until the foruth city is placed to take the luxury?

	01-08-2005 12:26									#13
	Got spare money?

I'm not too experienced with Agricultural civs, but is it a good option to place a lot of cities close together on that river?

N-NE
and
N-NE-N-NE of Poly come to mind...


Q: is the tile S-S-SW of Poly on the river?

	01-08-2005 12:51									#14
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by BigFurryMonster Q: is the tile S-S-SW of Poly on the river?

No, it is not, or we would probably be placing a city there.

I opened the turn (for the first time), and I just saw yet another bonus food tile. Forget my comment about it being too easy. This is ridiculously easy!

Anyway, here are my suggested city sites with the current knowledge of the terrain. I consider the green ones better than the reds, but they are subject to rejection if the northern green one is not on a River (but it probably is ). Order of settling would be 22, 999, 411, 888.

	01-08-2005 21:25									#15
	Tired of ads?

There is tundra to the north, if I see that correctly, which means that there is no other civ to the north. My strategy calculator then urges to expand to the south, east or west first, south preferred, because it leaves more options for useful expansion thereafter (east and west). Siberia can always be populated later.

Bythe way, it is rather odd, to have jungle and tundra as close to each other as less than two full city spans. What are we playing? Tiny?

Aidun

	02-08-2005 00:19									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Aidun There is tundra to the north, if I see that correctly, which means that there is no other civ to the north. My strategy calculator then urges to expand to the south, east or west first, south preferred, because it leaves more options for useful expansion thereafter (east and west). Siberia can always be populated later.

I agree as far as the second wave. Initially, though, the most important thing is to get productive core cities up close to the capitol in the low corruption zone; we can worry about directions once the core is filled.

	02-08-2005 00:22									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kloreep Initially, though, the most important thing is to get productive core cities up close to the capitol in the low corruption zone; we can worry about directions once the core is filled.

Ditto.

	02-08-2005 00:38									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I would put a cities at Apolyton 89, 22, 44 and 666, and probably in that order.

Build the FP in one of them (Prebuild, then change build when we have 8 cities), and Palace jump further away, and the end of the REX, so we can disband Apolyton and free up space for the other cities. As we would Palace jump before the cities can grow too large, we should not be disadvantaged by the lower city sizes that the tight build would normally cause.

	02-08-2005 00:41									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

But your plan has that one drawback of getting less River + bonus food cities (2, not 3, right?). Not to mention that the Granary does get wasted if we do jump. So would Barracks, if we build them. I am against that. I prefer to always make permanent cities. This is not PTW, Krill.

	02-08-2005 00:46									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, In C3C it is more efficient to build the FP in one of the core cities to benefit from the increased OCN asap.

What I am suggesting allows us this benefit, but we would also gain from decreased distance corruption if we Palace jumped say, 15 tiles to the south or east.

	02-08-2005 00:52									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

First, sorry about the confusion. Krill's plan allows just as many cities on fresh water, at least while it matters (i.e. in Despotism, because the jump would probably happen later).

quote: Originally posted by Krill What I am suggesting allows us this benefit, but we would also gain from decreased distance corruption if we Palace jumped say, 15 tiles to the south or east.

But is it really a benefit? I mean, as compared to a pretty well placed capital, and the cost of a Granary and Barracks going down the drain. Remember that you are not adding a new good core, but instead actually moving the good core with a Palace-jump (which sparked my "This is not PTW." comment). Your plan assumes there will be a better place for it. I still think placing the FP in such a place (if it happens to exist -- we do not know that) would be better than to commit to moving the core (which that city 89 from the capital in fact does). I never do palace jumps (Well, I did one, forcibly, thanks again, Ljube. ), so maybe I am missing some benefits here?

	02-08-2005 00:57									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

Well...I do know away around that problem.

What we do, is we build the FP in our core, as I propsed. We can also, at some point in the future, start a prebuild, for the FP in another city, in a better position. When that prebuild nears completion, we start to liquidate the Core FP citys' population into settlers and workers, finally abandoning the city, the turn before the new FP should complete. We then change the Prebuild to an FP, and the next trun we get a brand new FP in a better location than before, and we still have benefitted from the old FP placement. We can immediately rebuild the old abandoned city. To do this efficiently, we must not build anything of value in the old FP city (nothing more than a Barracks, and maybe, a library).

	02-08-2005 00:58									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You could have agreed to my very moderate terms and avoided the forced palace jump.

	02-08-2005 01:00									#24
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Krill Well...I do know away around that problem. What we do, is we build the FP in our core, as I propsed. We can also, at some point in the future, start a prebuild, for the FP in another city, in a better position. When that prebuild nears completion, we start to liquidate the Core FP citys' population into settlers and workers, finally abandoning the city, the turn before the new FP should complete. We then change the Prebuild to an FP, and the next trun we get a brand new FP in a better location than before, and we still have benefitted from the old FP placement. We can immediately rebuild the old abandoned city. To do this efficiently, we must not build anything of value in the old FP city (nothing more than a Barracks, and maybe, a library).

Hmm, forbidden palace is very expensive. All those lost shields. In the end it seems to be all the same if we build it close to our core or far from it.

	02-08-2005 01:06									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Hmm, forbidden palace is very expensive. All those lost shields. In the end it seems to be all the same if we build it close to our core or far from it.

If you have never done the evaluation, you would not normally understand the amount of shields and gold that you can save. I can not give you concrete numbers, without knowing the complete lay of the land, but we will definatley save more than 200 shields. Say, if we built FP1 on turn 70, and completed FP2 on turn 130, I would add a nought onto the end, saving about 2000 shields (net), and an unknown amount of gold (but alot, trust me on that. More than the amount of shields). And that is a conservative estimate, and assumes we don't get conquered/pop rush a lot...

	02-08-2005 01:17									#26
	Remove this text

130 turns is a long time. Few live to tell about it, if they choose to build the forbidden palace twice.

	02-08-2005 01:20									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

130 is not a Long time.


PTWDG took about 270 turns to complete, and each team started with a settler and a worker, (and a scout for ND).

PTWDG2, is currently at 610 AD (turn 175) and we have not even finished the medeaval era yet (OK, we have been at war for about 2/3s of that game), and each team started with a settler and a worker, (and a scout for CoD).

C3CDG started with 3 settlers, 3 workers and 2 warriors, (and a scout for BOH). We are currently at Turn 74. If we had started with just a worker and a settler, it would take about 100 turns minimum to reach our current level of developement.

	02-08-2005 01:24									#28
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Krill, I am not arguing against prebuilding the FP. It is a simple thing that we just have to plan for, as soon as we find the location of our second, weaker core.

What I do not see, however, are the benefits of jumping the palace there (let alone forcing ourselves to do so with the awkward spacing around the capital). After all, we would be leaving very good cities behind. Will they not sort of deteriorate because of that? I see little reason to do so, especially since our capital looks to be seated in a pretty good position, with plenty high-potential city sites around it.

	02-08-2005 06:54									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

i would say it is just too early to plan any palace jump as we do not know anything about the continent yet. but it seems as if our capital is quite well centered and therefore it is doubtful if we should do a palace jump...though of course we need to know if there is much tundra up north or not and if there is much jungle or not...
and of course if there is much good land to the west/east...

	03-08-2005 08:32									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

First city I like is 8,8,8. On teh tundra, but with access to the grain. 2nd would be 9,9,9,8, also on the tundra, and this would have access to the grain, but would be further away. Let apo have the game until the 3rd or 4th city. This is just my gut speaking, didn't do any analysis.