 |
Do you agree to this resolution?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
14 |
77.78% |
| No |
   |
4 |
22.22% |
| Abstain |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
18 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:25
|
|
I'm convinced that the tile s-e of our capital, just below the potato on the river is the ideal settling site. It will provide us with growth and we desperately need to grow now.
Other options would be north of the coal, also on the river, or somewhere north of the hills where Dave stands now. While I think the hills are just too far away the decision between potato and coal site is one growth vs. production.
The tile we would settle on is the same both times, it would give us 20 Food, 5 Production and 10 Gold points. So the other 8 tiles are important. From them we get city size/6 * the full amount of all 8 tiles. So in the beginning we would get the tile we're on plus 1/6 of the radius. (If you don't know how the system works -> FAQ)
8 tiles around south of the potato:
Total 110 Food, 55 Production, 50 Gold
8 tiles around north of the coal:
Total 45 Food, 105 Production, 50 Gold
So it's pretty clear - with the potato site we will grow twice as fast, while with the coal site we will produce twice as fast.
I'm convinced that we need growth first and that the coal site should be the location of our third city - that's why I'm proposing the following resolution:
The newly built settler is to settle on the river tile south of the potato.
Voting ends February 3rd, 2205 GMT.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
the potato site is to near to our existing cities (overlapping as soon either of them reaches a range of 3). in addition, that area should be explored better before placing a city.
in contrast the coal site's borders would perfectly fit in with our current ones. that site is still fast accessible from goodland via the river. it wields enourmous production for units and/or wonders, even more once we start digging mines. and that site can be turned into better food with a few pw later in the game (hacking down the 2 forest tiles e.g.) while there is no way to turn the potatoe site into a good production place before we can terraform hills.
so it goes to a clear: NO
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Growth is more important.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Its not that simple, Martin... we work 3 squares... and 4 squares and so on and so forth... quicker... with the potato site... firstly cos the site gets settled earlier... secondly because the growth of the city is just plain quicker.
We will not only be increasing production... but commerce and hence science too... vital for further developments.
The potato site can and will overtake the coal site, in the short term. A vote for the potato is a vote for progress.
MrBaggins
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins
firstly cos the site gets settled earlier... MrBaggins |
yes, in 5 turns instead of 7, thats a real lousy argument
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
I don't know what you mean with squares. |
He means because the city will grow faster near the potato, we'll work more tiles faster as we grow, so growth is the ultimate goal, rather than short term production.
And whats the thoughts on placing a farm there to settle on? Or is that cheating now?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
size 1 = 1/6 * 8 = 8/6ths + center
size 2 = 2/6 * 8 = 16/6ths + center
size 3 = 3/6 * 8 = 24/6ths + center
At size 1, we work the equivilent of 2 1/3 'civ squares' including the center
At size 2, we work the equivalent of 3 2/3 'civ squares' including the center
At size 3, we work the equivalent of 5 'civ square' including the center
Growth is remarkably profitable.
We *could* use a farmer specialists to make up for the lacking growth of the 'coal' site, but that will mean... much less science... much less gold. We could do the same tactic with the potato site, and grow EVEN QUICKER.
Plus... if we want to build more settlers, we don't want a site with slow growth.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The calculations mentioned here... are forgeting a few things... most importantly the 30% crime rate, and the other government factors
I did a few calculations and my numbers might be off by a few percent... and I might be forgetting some factors... cos the rounding is weird... but I figured after 17 turns... (and including the coal delay)
heres how the 2 sites will differ
Spud production 913 (-15%)
Spud Gold 172 (+12%)
Spud Science 226 (+27%)
Coal production 1050 (+15%)
Coal Gold 153 (-12%)
Coal Science 178 (-27%)
The Spud site grows a
bout 2 turns quicker at any given (relatively low) size , than the Coal site.
The Coal sites production advantage is less than 10 units a turn. Science is significantly better at Spudsville.
GoodLand will produce warriors @ about 4 turns when its size 2, due to building the settler.
MrBaggins
Last edited by MrBaggins on 02-02-2003 at 21:05
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Its a scary throught, but it'll be 24+ turns(?) before we get Archers... even if we settle Spudsville...
so... bunker down and pump warriors out of GoodLand... obviously... right?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
well, this poll has become obsolete, since it lags behind gameplay and should be closed. at the moment i write this, it 12/4/0
|
|
|  |
 |
|
medio
|
|
we will be better off fueling pop growth early on. We can alter prod levels later, but there is no substitute for quick early growth. I vote yes
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
you are free to vote any way you want, but its useless. that potato site is already the home of our glorious city kartoffelpuffer. we should more care about which place our next settler (at the moment being built in pedrunn) will found our third ciry. the hottest spot will be at the coalsite, though there is still a discussion whether to settle directly on the coal (even better production, even worse growth, huge defence bonus, can be an argument that close to a border as well) or on the riversidegrassland one field to the north.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:25
|
|
This resolution has passed - nr. 002 - it has been followed already before voting was over.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|