 |
| |
|
|
Timeline
|
 |
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Do you favor close (fair amount of overlap) or evenly spaced (minimal city rad overlap) city building? |
I favor pretty evenly spaced lapping for the first 3 - 4 core cities UNLESS it is at the expense of wasted tiles. Overlapping 2 or 3 tiles on a core city is acceptable but things really do depend on the terrain.
I do not object to moderate overlaping for non-core cities.
I favor a fair amount of overlapping when in hostile terrain.
My plans are for ultimate long term efficiency.
Last edited by Timeline on 12-06-2002 at 07:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jonny
|
 |
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Nov 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
Hello people,
I'm running for the Minister of Imperial Expansion position.
Why should you vote for me?
- I'm an experienced Civ3 player, and I know what I'm doing when it comes to building new cities.
- I plan for maximum efficency, and try to leave no square unused and with little overlap.
- However, I'm not totally strict when it comes to the above rule, and will break it if it leads to much more productive cities (e.g., breaking the rule so a city isn't in the middle of a jungle)
- I'm friendly (usually), I listen to peoples idea, and I will help our empire thrive!
And here's answers to some of the questions you have asked:
- Expanding to get land and resources but trying to keep all the land up-to-date in public works is probably more important than expanding to get lots of land, but both are very important in the long run.
- I strive for minimum city overlap, except in special situations, such as building cities close to our enemies. I espically go for minimum city overlap in the early game, so we can get more land than if we overlapped.
Remember, vote for Jonny, the best choice for the well-being of our Empire!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Obviously one would want rapid early expansion, but there's more to Imperial Expansion. Preventing other (esp more powerful) civs from setting up encleves in the middle of a hole in an empire is critical, because not only would it be embarassing to a nation, but strategicly unsound as well. |
I agree, it is most unwise to leave land inside your civ uninhabited as the AI will come up and plant a city right where it is guaranteed to be most annoying  .
Steady outward expansion is key, and I have stated many times before that I do not believe in wasting good terrain at home out of greed to form cities far away (which will most likely be useless because of corruption anyway). As Imperial Expansion Minister, I will make sure that terrain in our land is not wasted or made unusable. The only time I would support sending a settler out of our expansion sphere is if there were a much needed luxury resource, or strategic resource we don't have.
Gold mines are a good thing as I mentioned in another thread, because they give outstanding boosts to our science and commerce. I believe getting all the gold in our area is important, and will do every thing I can to make sure it is used properly.
quote:
Also a civ needs resources badly therefore cities placed to absorb a desert might seem wasteful early on but might be valuable for oil later on. |
This is where I have to disagree. Usually early in the game, there are many better spots to colonize and develop than deserts. By electing me, you would be electing someone who will go for the best and choice spots first. I mean, if there are not any better spots to colonize than deserts, I will, lol, but building starving cities in deserts, just hoping that maybe there will be a good resource at the exact spot you planted a city, is not practical.
by the way, good luck to all the participants 
Last edited by Timeline on 12-06-2002 at 07:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
DO any of you support cities being close together? I would vote for that person. Jonny appears to be out in my view. |
Yes, I do support overlapping cities. Just to throw out a guess, and keep in mind it depends on terrain, but I could see overlapping by about 6 squares (max) in a grassland/plain area, making for 14 usable. I support this method so that excessive amounts of terrain do not go unused when our cities hit the 12 pop limit until sanitation.
Unlike my competitor Jonny, who stated and I quote: “I plan to leave very little overlap.”, I do not care for size 20+ cities (which leaving little overlap tends to lead to). All they leave you with are a bunch of unhappy citizens and useless specialists. I VALUE the benefits of mildly overlapping cities and appreciate it’s outstanding ability for early-mid game economic benefits.
Last edited by Timeline on 12-06-2002 at 07:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jonny
|
|
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Nov 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Timeline
Yes, I do support overlapping cities. Just to throw out a guess, and keep in mind it depends on terrain, but I could see overlapping by about 6 squares (max) in a grassland/plain area, making for 14 usable. I support this method so that excessive amounts of terrain do not go unused when our cities hit the 12 pop limit until sanitation.
Unlike my competitor Jonny, who stated and I quote: “I plan to leave very little overlap.”, I do not care for size 20+ cities (which leaving little overlap tends to lead to). All they leave you with are a bunch of unhappy citizens and useless specialists. I VALUE the benefits of mildly overlapping cities and appreciate it’s outstanding ability for early-mid game economic benefits. |
Here's my counter-point.
First, not overlapping cities usually means we get more territory, territory other Civs do not get. More land would make us more powerful over time and other civs less powerful, AND it wouldn't get too crowded in the late-game.
Second, it is true that this could result in 20+ cities later on. But, as I said, with bigger cities, more land, and more commerce, we will be able to pay for happiness improvments and use some commerce for happiness. Also, the specialists got above size 20 can be useful for some extra cash or science. (A single one doesn't give much, but they can add up with a lot of 20+ cities.)
Finally, I said I will try to leave little overlap (earlier in this thread), not eliminate it altogether. Is there a great difference between little overlap and "mildly overlapping," as Timeline said?
P.S.: Vote for me!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
First, not overlapping cities usually means we get more territory, territory other Civs do not get. More land would make us more powerful over time and other civs less powerful, AND it wouldn't get too crowded in the late-game. |
Yes, but spreading cities farther apart means more corruption, and corruption really takes a hit on the economy early in the game when you have cities spread out too far apart (no overlap) as opposed to carefully managed cities (ie most bang for your buck - my way).
Close colonization doesn’t mean losing land. If elected, building an empire as large (or larger) than anyone els will be a top priority. Well placed cities can churn out settlers, and I would petition to the city planner and president that such be built (in order to secure our world dominance). In games I play on monarch, I commonly expand to a size either equal or larger than the AI in size (large/huge, least amount of water, and archipelago maps), and usually dominate in score from early on. This is without conquest or cultural acquisition (in one game a got a size 12 city from China from culture).
quote:
Second, it is true that this could result in 20+ cities later on. But, as I said, with bigger cities, more land, and more commerce, we will be able to pay for happiness improvments and use some commerce for happiness. |
Am I correct in assuming that you are talking about raising the luxery slider to cover unhappiness?!  I don’t think the science buffs will like that at all.... 
Size 20+ cities don’t usually make their worth vs the cost of having the citz in them: A Specialist collecting 1 gold/beaker per turn in a 20+ city is simply not as effective as one collecting 3 gold/beaker per turn (like off a water tile) in a -21 size.
All this being said, I am not a pack-em-in-there type player. As mentioned, I sometimes give Coastal or hill/mountain side cities their full 19/20 tiles so that they can feed themselves and work the deep water, or towering mountains, and lump their production into one city so they can pump out .......anything we please. HOWEVER, I am a strong opposer to 20+ pop size cities, and view somewhat close placement of cities as one means of countering this.
quote:
Finally, I said I will try to leave little overlap (earlier in this thread), not eliminate it altogether. Is there a great difference between little overlap and "mildly overlapping," as Timeline said? |
Because I understand the benefits of when it works and when it don’t. So it may be done a “little” or a “lot”, depending on terrain, but I will do it with mildness, that is: not more than practical, necessary.
By the way, there is something els I would like to mention. Jonny has made it a point to say he will listen to the people and what they have to say. I want to say, should I be elected for this position, I will make informing and listening to the people my TOP and NUMBER 1 Priority as Imperial Expansion Minister. By voting for me, you are voting for someone who will post detailed information and maps of our expansion area, along with suggestions and remarks, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE PEOPLE, the Final say in all matters. Elect me, and I will be active in getting the people involved, and everyone will have a say.
Vote Timeline for Expansion Minister NOW! *points finger*.......you can’t afford not to.
(I am going to bed now guys, I can’t hardly keep my eyes open)
Last edited by Timeline on 12-06-2002 at 16:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chandragupta
|
 |
of a minor tribe of Orcs
Jun 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Meant in good humor  :
How many of us out there are amongst the peasantry? I would imagine that at least a quarter if not half of us citizens are of the rank of settler! There must be a representative of the people in the cabinet, and, at least for the time being, I am of the lowly rank of settler! The two leading candidates are both of the lesser nobility as a warlord or prince, and this IS a democracy after all, so ought not the common populous be represented?
Back to serious, at any rate  I just felt that some polite satire of the present situation was in order. Now, at the risk of turning this into a rant-length post, i will proceed to address the pertinent issues...
Overlapping: Very intriguing viewpoints from everyone so far. I feel that in regard to our own cities, that overlapping in food distribution is all right, however production sources ought not be overlapped to give all cities maximum prod-for-pop ratio. Near to other civs, busting the border is fine by me since we can absorb nearby cities via culture (I've done the same as Timeline, just vs Japan) and we can use towns as moneymaking border forts.
And as for the people? Well, this is a democratic empire after all, and I the power of the ministers depends on you, so you will have sway with all of us. (also, see above  )
Good luck to all ministerial candidates, this game rocks and it hasnt started yet!
Yet again i agree with Timeline, sleep is good, so i'm out...
(Vote for me!  )
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2002 11:10
|