 |
|
pikesfan
|
|
I'm glad we now have Barcelona. I think the greatest priority must be #2 and then #3 and then the city with the Iron.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
2 and 3
but if they get cities past that first, just try to continue building a barrier
we might even want to build 4,12 etc. that is IIRC VC, etc. are to the southeast of us?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
I like what I call #5 where it is becuase it's population will take off sooner and the proximity of the river will help it feed all of the miners for those mountains and hills tiles. If you move it north, it may not have enough food to feed the laborers for all of those tiles.
As for what I call #3, Togas and I have been debating whether it should be north or south of the river. I believe it should be north of the river to make it coastal (only northwestern port, harbor, eventually commercial docks) and less over-lapping with the rest of our territory. Togas believes it should be south of the river so that we can use the river as a common defensive line against potential GoW or ND attack.
You'll also note that my positions for what I call #10, #11, and #12 is different from E_T's. I like #10 where it is because as a harbor+docks city with mines on those grassland tiles, it should do quite nicely and the overall layout of cities utilizes more tiles overall (including all of those sea tiles). My site for #11 utilizes more of our territory in the far south and leaves more room for #12 to have its own area and (at Togas' suggestion) squeeze another small into where I have the "?" marked on the map (if you move #7 SE as he suggested).
Overall, my plan is an attempt to utilize as many tiles as possible, even if some cities overlap. With a higher total utilization of land and actually more cities, I believe we're better off than attempting to form so-called "perfect cities" that result in the use of less available land and having less cities (thus less production centers).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
Togas,
I've updated cityplan3.jpg, but stupid AOL isn't letting me upload it at the moment 
Anyhow... here's what I've noticed...
Moving #5 as you originally suggested to the NE isn't such a bad idea afterall... it still gets the wheat and the loss of river tiles is meaningless for food. It loses 2 food, yeah, but it there aren't any grassland tiles to help with food ANYHOW. One things for certain, that wheat tile better be irrigated ASAP once that city is built (in either location).
Moving #5 NE as you originally suggested would then allow for the #7's move SW and placing another city on the hills tile 1 S and 1 SE of the iron. That new city could utilize the tiles of the river area and the hills and mountains (but a small area overall, only 8-9 tiles, but that's worth it).
Since we're not likely to be conquering half the board in this game, squeezing additional cities into our land is the best thing to do (unlike single-player games, where you make "perfect cities" and reduce number of cities because you're counting on taking over half the map and you want to reduce overall corruption).
#1's move north means that #5's move NE is quite workable and takes out the need for a new city in between #5 and Pamplona (but places the need for that new city between #5 and #7 back on the table).
So your original suggestion looks pretty good, Togas 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2003 13:18
|
|