 |
Which new sites should we go for?
This poll is closed. |
| Site 1 |
   |
7 |
43.75% |
| Site 2 |
   |
8 |
50.00% |
| Site 3 |
   |
9 |
56.25% |
| Site 4 |
   |
6 |
37.50% |
| Site 5 |
   |
14 |
87.50% |
| Site 6 |
   |
9 |
56.25% |
| Site 7 |
|
7 |
43.75% |
| Site 8 |
|
8 |
50.00% |
| Site 9 |
|
10 |
62.50% |
| Site 10 |
|
11 |
68.75% |
| Only colonize areas with bananas |
|
3 |
18.75% |
| Total: |
16 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
CannonFodder
|
 |
Alabama, home of the Chronically Ignorant
Jan 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
As of now, we have a number of city sites that are unused. Some of them overlap. Some are a long way away from our capital. In addition, our resources for constructing new sites are somewhat thin. However, for future reference I am putting this poll up to show our prospects for new cities, and to decide where we should go first.
Note: Some of these sites are essentially rehashes from steelhc's last city site thread, but some of those have been colonized.
Poll is open for 5 days.
Last edited by CannonFodder on 06-05-2002 at 03:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CannonFodder
|
|
Alabama, home of the Chronically Ignorant
Jan 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
These are the first two cities. The one on the same island as our other cities will overlap with Umbra. 1 is at (95,33) and 2 is at (88,22).
 Attachment: sites12.jpg
This has been downloaded 69 time(s).
Last edited by CannonFodder on 06-05-2002 at 03:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:19
|
|
I like 5 and 9 a lot, and 8 is good too.
A few points - 8 is ages away - literally the other side of the world from our Palace, so it would take forever to get there and would have awful corruption, plus it is right near those Babylonians - and we know they can reach New Brandenburg with Triremes! 
9 is safer, but just as distant. 5 is my pick as it is both good for three whales , is another close base to Egypt/America and both 4 and 5 are very close to the Capital. 4 is OK for the same reasons.
3 interests me, but we need to know more about that spot - plus it is very close to Rome and India. One big potential plus in exploring there, though, is that just N of there is a big unexplored space. The section of land you see in the NW corner almost certainly backs on to the Carthaginians' land, but E of there (directly N of the proposed city) is a big area of potential land.
That's it, I guess. If anyone needs any further location info on these sites, speak up - a well-informed populace leads to good Governing decisions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shaka Naldur
number 8 and number 5 one square north-east |
Site 5 is the center of the circle, not where the number is pasted. It would get all 3 Whales.
quote:
if we are going to conquer the egyptians and the americans to bulid more cities is not very useless... |
No offense meant, but did you really mean "useless"? In context, "useful" (the opposite idea) seems to make more sense. In other words, I interpret your thought to mean that we should not build new cities if we are going to conquer existing ones.
If that is the case, I disagree. There are several sites for new cities that would be very productive and self-supporting very quickly. We have enough Musketeers to land a Settler and a Musketeer at several sites so that they would have immediate defense.
In addition, a few new cities would give us some places to share the support cost of our many military units. Apolyton, for example is supporting 6 units at a cost of 3 shields per turn. I would to relieve a few cities of that burden and take advantage of the "3 Free Unit" support we get as a Monarchy. For each new city we build, we came home 3 units at no cost.
And most of those new sites are near other civ's, so we will want 3 units in them anyway. Those freed-up shields will help the existing cities produce more Caravans and Crusaders, and we need them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shaka Naldur
|
 |
Castellón, Spain
May 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cavebear
No offense meant, but did you really mean "useless"? In context, "useful" (the opposite idea) seems to make more sense. In other words, I interpret your thought to mean that we should not build new cities if we are going to conquer existing ones.
If that is the case, I disagree. There are several sites for new cities that would be very productive and self-supporting very quickly. We have enough Musketeers to land a Settler and a Musketeer at several sites so that they would have immediate defense.
In addition, a few new cities would give us some places to share the support cost of our many military units. Apolyton, for example is supporting 6 units at a cost of 3 shields per turn. I would to relieve a few cities of that burden and take advantage of the "3 Free Unit" support we get as a Monarchy. For each new city we build, we came home 3 units at no cost.
And most of those new sites are near other civ's, so we will want 3 units in them anyway. Those freed-up shields will help the existing cities produce more Caravans and Crusaders, and we need them.
|
yes, i´m sorry, i meant useful
well, we´ll have to deal with a lot of cities,
I agree with all you´ve said but if we are getting around 8 cities (maybe more) from egyptians and americans, and we build 12 cities more it will seem a ICS (is the awy to spell it??) game
but is just my humble opinion
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2002 02:48
) one square North? That way it still gets the whale, and also the Pheasants (yum) and doesn't overlap as badly with no. 5, and not at all with Light!
what can I say more...
|
