 |
|
Will 5001
|
 |
UK Ex - Imperial Expansion Minister
Apr 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
Welcome to the Minister of Imperial expansion campaign thread. Here the candidates will publish their policies where they can be disscussed to help the citizens decide who to vote for on the all important polling days.
Currently the candidates for Minister of Imperial expansion are as follows:
Will 5001 (UFC)
Sir Ralph (IND)
Jonny (DIA)
The election will be held on a seperate thread on Friday July 12 and end on Tuesday July 16th when the minister will begin (or restart) his duties.
Last edited by Will 5001 on 08-07-2002 at 14:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
My opponent never ran unopposed, since I was the first who applied for this office.
In this crucial phase of the game, our empire needs productive cities. Productive to build settlers, units and may be the first cultural improvements. That means, right now food and shields matter more, than an "optimal" city placement with no overlap. Once we made our way out of our small peninsula, we'll succeed to build city powerhouses soon enough. Ah yes, as one of the authors of Case Pink, I support it of course.
Here is my plan in particular:
- Follow Case Pink and build the "Blue city"
- As soon as our military actions succeed, construct a new coreland in the fertile American and/or French lands. Because this land is good, we can plan future powerhouses there, with an optimal mix of mountains, hills and grassland and only a small or no overlap. Plan cities such, that they may support 20 citizens. More isn't necessary, since specialists in core cities are useless.
- In the further perspective, consider to build the Forbidden Palace in one of these centers (may be in Washington?), to make the cities more productive.
- Later on, when we know more of the map and generated a leader, we should consider to jump our palace. Our capital is misplaced on the tip of a peninsula. It should be surrounded by cities, to take full advantage of the lower corruption.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jonny
|
 |
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Nov 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
ATTENTION: I will be running for a second term as Imperial Expansion minister. I will be a candidate for the DIA again.
Why should you vote for me to be your new IE minister?
Firstly, I strive to place cities in positions that will make them efficent and productive, however that can be done.
Secondly, I have more experience as IE minister than any other candidate, having served 1 term. I was also deputy IE minister under Timeline.
Third, I listen to the people. I listen to their opinions, and act accordingly. If I propose a plan, and people don't like it, I'll listen to their ideas and suggestions to change it.
Finally, I promise that my decisions will NOT be based on party politics. For example, I highly supported Case Pink, even though it was highly supported by the UFC. I am part of the DIA, not the UFC.
So remember, vote for Jonny, the best choice for Apolytonia!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
Robber Baron,
I see not much of a difference between pruning and wiping out. Almost every civ I prune, I wipe out at some point, namely when they are so poor, that they can't give me useful stuff anymore. However, I am strongly against wiping a civ out in the BCs. As long as a civ can supply me with 2-3 techs and 2-3 cities every 20 turns, I would be a fool if I slaughtered that fat cow.
Notyoueither,
Good to see you here. Yes, 3-spacing has certain benefits. First, as you told, I can build more cities close to my capital and benefit from the lower distance generated corruption. Second, smaller cities are happier cities, they can easier been kept in WLTKD, without needing much improvements. This is important in the levels above Monarch (where we happen to play), because it's usually hard to build the Sistine Chapel and/or Bachs with no leader at hand. Third, smaller cities produce less pollution. Fourth, they don't tend to waste shields. A size-20 city usually yields only about 80 shields and builds a tank in 2 turns, wasting 60 shields. A size 12-15 city, giving net 50 shields, also builds a tank in 2 turns, but wastes nothing. And last not least, they don't tend to fill up with useless specialists in the later game.
But cities without overlap also have their benefits. In the late game they can, if built well-placed and fully developed, have an absolute killer production to build spaceship parts or wonders. Look alone at my IW city from the Minitourney III in the Strategy forum (picture below). It produces a net of 150 shields (w/o GA). It can feed only 19 citizens, even with railroaded irrigation, and only this prevents it from being ideal. It is, by the way, a city I got by pruning in the early game (see the name Osaka for a Chinese city).
So how to place cities? The best solution seems to be in the middle. I tend to build cities 3-spaced around my Palace. This grants me a good start. Usually, my FP I build in a former AI capital, because it is mostly a great city site. Since the AI builds with low overlap, I continue this style and thus get a coreland with powerhouse cities. I call this the Policy of Two Centers. One, tighter packed, gives in the late game lots of cities, able to build a tank in 2 turns. The second gives power cities for spaceship parts and wonders.
 Attachment: osaka.png
This has been downloaded 290 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jonny
|
|
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Nov 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
Answers to some questions asked:
Robber Baron:
I support wiping the Americans down to 1 city and getting all their techs and money (or as much as we can get from them) for peace. Then annhilate them outright. After that, we take a break from war. We then do some peaceful expansion by building several new cities, while building up and healing military at the same time. Then, go on to the next civ (probably French) and repeat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYE:
I don't neccesarily support near-zero overlap. I support whatever makes our cities most productive and efficent. For example, the cities in Case Pink were placed closer together than I might build in other situations, but there was a good reason for this - the cities could get the most out of the grasslands. This made them more productive and efficent in the long run. So, if you told me that we can fit 4 rings of productive cities in a 16 tile radius using 3 tile gaps, but only 3 rings in a 15 tile radius using 4 tile gaps, I'd say use the 3 tile gaps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
star mouse
|
 |
of the Barbarians
Aug 2001
time: 16:20
|
|
City placement should vary according to terrain. Where the terrain allows for large cities, a distant spacing will allow the city to grow large. Where the terrain is more marginal, a closer spacing will allow all the tiles to be worked, depending on how big the city can get.
Example: Grassland & Hill Terrain
Spacing the cities so each city has about 18 tiles to itself will make this city a large one in the late game. Every grassland square should be mined. A few squares should be irrigated to support the population on the hills and mountains.
Example: Tundra terrain
Packing the cities fairly tightly here will allow you to utilise this marginal terrain effectively. If each tundra city had only nine squares to itself, you will gain more than if you allowed each city to have 20 squares. A tundra city that only grows to a size of 4 or 5 shouldn't hoard 20 tiles to itself because you will never use them. Pack them in close, build barracks and a temple, and have these little cities produce nothing but military units throughout the game.
Apolytonia is surrounded by jungle. For jungle, I like to found my jungle cities with the future in mind. One day, that jungle will be gone, and the sooner it's gone the better you will be. Found the jungle cities, and have these cities build workers, a temple, and a couple of cheap military units to protect the workers. Get to work clearing that jungle. I like to use what I call the "Amish" technique - have your workers all work together on the same city to get it cleared as fast as possible in one huge "roof raising". Later, when you're done with the workers, have them join the cities again, and you'll get some great cities where the jungle once was.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
I have one question before I vote. At what point will you stop supporting the aggressive expansion proposed by Uberkraux and the Hawks, and start supporting an expansion that is more domestically based (utilising our own settlers). Will it be after we have taken out the Americans, or the Americans and French or are you just as with gaining mostly AI cities through military aquisition.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2002 00:11
.
|
