 |
| |
|
|
Timeline
|
 |
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Well, we need to decide if city planner/imperial expansion ministers will be separate or merged. This will effect me greatly as I am in competition for the Imperial Expansion Minister position.
At this time I just want to say, I feel that I would be a superior candidate for a city planner/expansion officer, this is why:
Placing cities tightly can really inhibit growth once Sanitation has been discovered. Sir Ralph has stated that he usually places cities tight, but will not do so because it is not popular. As someone who has spent his games playing a pack-em-in-there city placement style, do you really want Ralph experimenting with proper city placement in our demo game? I am someone who has always taken much care in placing my cities, and I do not conform to any rigid patterns or grids (Ralph: I will use city placements between 3 and 5 tiles apart) but rather I take our Empire’s current goals and situation into account.
For example:
In the early game we will need to advance in technology quickly, in order to posses a respectable military and obtain decent government. For me, getting out of despotism is always the number 1 priority. Now, to help us do this quickly, I understand the importance of STRATEGIC RESOURCES like Gold. Gold is the life blood of any despotic nation, it makes a HUGE difference on science production rates. As your Expansion/City Minister, I will pledge to fully expliot our region and get our science moving along quickly.
I view corruption as a dirty scourge, and I relize that poorly placed cities (too far away) are useless to our empire. I promise I will develop our region to it’s full potential and will put forth every effort to get and keep our nation at the top of the score, EVEN IF WE DO NOT CONQUER OTHER NATIONS. Tight City expansion crushes any hope of this and long term development planning is key.
My common strategy in city placement is to value strategic resources while in despotism, because they do not suffer the restrictions of this government. Wheat and cows, next to the sea or hills will boost our commerce/production immensely. Also I highly value placing cities next to fresh water cause I know how PO’d the defense minister will get at seeing our nation building aqueducts when we could be building a military or our science minister when we could be building Libraries  .
The bottom line is people, vote for Timeline as your City Planner/Imperial Expansion Minister, and put our nation in line for cities that stand the test of time 
Thank you
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Crap lol, I'm afraid I pulled a bushism there, yea I was thinking bonus resources and typed strategic resources, my mistake and I apoligize. To re-word the sentence so it would make some sense:
I value bonus resources such as gold.
quote:
However, sometimes there are strategic resources such as coal or iron that need to be within secure boundaries - meaning cities and not just colonies. What is your response? |
I wholeheartedly agree, in fact I have personally found very few situations where colonies prove useful to date. I agree in forming cities to control far-away STRATEGIC resources, I do not, however, feel such cities must be developed any further than is necessary. Positioning a small (1 or 2 unit) garrison and Rush-building a harbor for overseas colony-cities is acceptable, any more, is not.
quote:
Does timeline's platform include factoring in military and security concerns as well as developmental ones? |
Yes sir! As a Captain you would know that Panama type tiles are a bear necessity for sea fearing civs. I highly value coastal cities (on archipelago maps) for forging strong naval superiority, and Panama tiles for ensuring flexibility and maneuverability of that navy.
Making cities for land chokepoints (between mountains and such)? Well, that I am not so hot on. When it comes to in-land development I do not believe security concerns (such as placing a city on a hill rather than on that grassland with a river) should outweigh long term economic growth. I think fortresses and strong in-city garrisons better serve the purpose of in-land security rather the placement of the cities themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
Since certain "candidates" here prefer to run others down, even though they are obviously confused with the types of resources, let me clarify the following:
City placement plays an enormous role in the early game. Tight packing has clear benefits, because it lowers the corruption from distance to the capital. Further, in the early game a city needs only a few tiles to work though. Tight packing hinders the cities to grow later, that's true, but smaller cities are happier cities and produce less pollution. And in terrain with low food (deserts) you also can safely pack cities tight, because they won't grow big anyway, at least till Steam power. So instead of run people down, this "candidate" should rather learn how this game works.
As for experience: I play this game since it came to the market. I have experience with all kinds of city placement patterns, and know benefits and weak points of each of them.
I will not favor tight packing, but take in account the terrain. Anyway, the citizens decide, where the cities are placed. I make only proposals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Are you in favour of limiting city sizes due to the small value of specialists in comparison to the rising cost of unhappiness?
What about you Timeline? Do you favour cities>21? |
I consider specialists to be useless and do not favour cities over size 20. Happiness matters, happy citizens give more score than content. And Cities of size 25+ grow into a serious problem in wars during democracy due to rampant growing war weariness. As I said, smaller cities are happier and better to handle in hard times.
About timeline, well, I don't know if I understand your question right... Do you mean timeline for city growth? That depends. Early in the game the cities will grow slowly, because their pop points will go into settlers, and other ministers may decide to poprush. I'm not against a reasonable poprush, but refuse to do it at all price. Later, I grow cities to their maximum. That means for me, to the "happiness limit". It also matters, that distant cities are more productive in WLT*D.
EDIT: eek, I just noticed a poster named "Timeline". Never mind .
About "rudeness"... no offense meant and taken. I know this is a political campaign, and mild hits are allowed .
Last edited by Sir Ralph on 11-06-2002 at 00:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PeteBDawg
Okay, I'm hearing a lot of regurgitated strategies here, but I see very little attempt by the candidates to distinguish themselves from one another. We're talking about the livelihood and prosperity of whole cities here; why would these cities be better off under your direction than under somebody else's? |
To be perfectly honest, I can't claim to necessarily be any better a city planner than either Sir Ralph nor Timeline. I've never seen them play.
quote:
What's your view on culture? To what extent is it to be pursued, and at what cost? |
I think culture is great. If there were a Cultural minister Position, I would be running for that. Obviously I wouldn't put it ahead of defense, as culture does us no good if someone takes our cities. I support warless cultural assaults and believe a strong culture is vital to ours and anyone else's empire. I am inclined to put a temple and library in every town and a cathedral and university in every city. Colosseums come last, and only if really necessary, as I don't believe them to be cost-effective. Personally I hope our civ is religious. If there is enough time to squeeze a temple in betwen two settlers near the beginning of the game and we already have few units around I iwll probably build it with the consent ofthe populace, as the earlier it's built the more culture it accumulates and the sooner it will reach the 1000 year bonus. This is important early as the the turns grow ever shorter.
quote:
How about wonders? If you are in charge of building projects, what wonders are you going to construct, and why? |
This depends on the level we play. If it's Deity I would not plan on getting any wonders until the industrial age, where I would want to get ToE, as that will likely be our first chance to take the tech-lead. If it's more around REgent/Monarch I would probably want to try to get Pyramids, Sistine Chapel or Bach's, and Sun Tzu's. On a level like that I would expect we would be able to get most of the wonders after that point (late MA) due to our likely huge lead over the other civs, if we haven't won already.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Hey all, I'm back!
“Since certain "candidates" here prefer to run others down, even though they are obviously confused with the types of resources”
I am not confused with resource types at all, sir, I just typed the wrong word, as I already mentioned, sir.
“So instead of run people down, this "candidate" should rather learn how this game works.”
Who is running who down, sir?
“Are you in favour of limiting city sizes due to the small value of specialists in comparison to the rising cost of unhappiness?
What about you Timeline? Do you favour cities>21?””
Am I in favor of limiting city pop sizes to not exceed 20 pop because of the small value of specailists? Yes. Of course Sir Ralph is going to be against cities over size 20 because any rook-average civ player knows that after this: your pop will either be converted into unhappy citizens or specialists.
Limiting the number of usable terrain by a city makes very little difference on if it will be forced to make specialists or not. It does, however, effect how happy the populace will be. You mentioned the rising cost of unhappiness. I do not feel that properly managed unhappy citizens are costly. Happiness improvements (temples, cathedrals and coliseums) make up for their maintenance and build costs by the culture they produce. For the most part, luxuries coupled with a marketplace, and these Buildings can handle a size 20 city without entertainers (barring war weariness). It is when you need entertainers in your city when unhappiness starts costing you, and that can happen in medium size cities as well as large ones.
I favor 20 tile size cities next to hills and mountains so they can draw food from the land and get production from the hills, thus putting all your production in one place for maxim building efficiency. I suggest large cities next to oceans for the same reason, so they can draw food and commerce, and lump production in one place to build ships. Other than that....size 15 tile cities on grassland and plains is appropriate, as there will be little wasted land while at the 12 pop max limit and still room to grow at Sanitation.
I hope this answers your question.
“i would like to see each candidates ideas for how many units they will provide me with.”
Well, with large production cities you will be getting military units faster than with many small ones. Clumping production by mountain or hills, and mining off unneeded grassland and plains will ensure you a steady flow. As far as maintenance, that is for the people and president to decide . But if I am elected, I guarantee we will have strong, powerhouse cities that will standby to appease the people’s whim.
“but I see very little attempt by the candidates to distinguish themselves from one another."
Well, this is because when overanalyzed, city-planning can becomes a science, there is some room for personal preference, but when it comes down to it, it is pretty black and white as far as efficiency.
“What's your view on culture? To what extent is it to be pursued, and at what cost?”
If we want to head into an early war (which seems to be the Imperialist party’s view) then I feel culture should only be maintained to protect our cities and isolate captured holdings. If we REX and are able to gain a vast tract of land peacefully, and wish to remain peaceful, then I would suggest rigorous culture efforts to peacefully bring other nations under our banner and enlighten them with our nobility.
“How about wonders? If you are in charge of building projects, what wonders are you going to construct, and why?”
Well this is a REALLY hard to answer without knowing our starting conditions and situation. Just to kind of let it all hang out: If we play an Pangea map then I would go for Great Library. And if Archipelago then maybe the Oracle or Sistine Chapel. That’s nothing concrete, just throwing ideas out there. I think that with such a major thing as a wonder, the people will really have the strongest say in that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Space05us
|
|
What do you plan on building first: Military, Culture, Money, or Tech related improvements, and why?
Last edited by Space05us on 11-06-2002 at 08:50
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
Timeline: Thanks for being fair. And no offense was meant nor taken. But you know, in a political campaign things like this happen .
Culture: Matters. And I also will build cultural improvements in towns/cities, that can afford it (meaning, not completely corrupt ones). I won't come with build orders or promises about early culture building, because it depends on so many things, that we still haven't decided. Difficulty level, for instance. On Deity, an early barracks and lots of vet units do a better job than a temple. Also depends on map settings and our civ's traits. A scientific civ builds cheaper libraries than temples. Libs have a higher culture bonus, but no happiness value. When building improvements, I will consider the needs of the particular city, and (with more priority) of our empire.
Wonders: Like I said about culture. Depends on many things. The Pyramids are an excellent wonder, but if we are Egypt, they will fire our GA too early. Also, if playing Emperor or Deity, it's not wise to try ancient wonders, as the AI will probably beat us anyway and we'll waste shields. In this stage it can be wiser wiser to build units and to conquer some key wonders. Generally, key wonders are Pyramids, Great Library (on higher levels), Great Lighthouse (if Archipelago), Sun Tzus (if not Militaristic), Sistine and/or Bachs, Smiths, Universal Suffrage, ToE, Hoover Dam, UN, Seti. Either to build or to conquer. Other wonders are a nice-to-have, but not a must. So again, my only promises is to take in account our position in the game and the needs of our mighty empire.
And most important: We are a Democracy with a strong plebiscitary element. All I can make, are well thought proposals. The sovereign will decide.
|
|
| |
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 18:47
......... questions 
|