 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
My initial thoughts as to our city placement: (I know it's not as pretty as Theseus' layout...)
1. I think it's worth the extra turn getting to this location. We get a river site with coastal access.
2. Combined with 5 this would cut down the time necessary to get Irrigation from the river up to the plains by quite a few turns, only requiring us to chop one Jungle, and minimizing the number of Grassland we would be Irrigating to 2. If by some chance we find a freshwater source to the W, both these cities could be repositioned, but site 2 probably should stay where it is.
3. As good a time to hook up the Incense as any, and by this time all the bonus Grassland available will be claimed, so the lack of any within it's radius isn't a big deal. We get the effect of the Incense commerce bonus even by building on it.
4. Depending on how many Workers we have at this point, the order of 4, 5, and 6 could vary. I like this site a little better than 877 as it will have more Plains tiles to work on and gives us a bit more flexibility in placing any other Desert cities.
5. The other half of the Irrigation canal. Clears a Jungle tile for us, but shouldn't be founded until we have cleared the tile 8 from this site. As with 1 and 6, we risk building on a Shielded Grassland, but the Worker turns saved and 'disposable' nature of our cities in this area because of the tight build should more than offset that risk.
6. Depending on what we uncover to the S, this site may be best to move. Also it needs a Jungle tile cleared before founding.
--------------------
The exact nature of most of these cities is dependant on the number of shielded Grassland we uncover in the Jungle.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I just got around to thinking about city placement, then saw that Aeson beat me to a similar conclusion. Aeson, your city placement plan looks quite good. But, I was thinking of settling the site you marked '2' first, instead of second. This way city #2 will be able to benefit from the Game tile when Apolyton does not need it, promoting growth (which we desperately need).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
I generally do not like borg-style placing. But I do concede that it may be a necessity given our start. But we should make sure we are not along on the landmass first... That means more exploring to the south.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Whoa, big question Togas, and one that I discussed at length with Arnelos previously. Depending on time, I'll either come up with a few succint points, or will provide some links to the Strat forum (where this type of stuff is discussed to heck and back). But until then I hope you can trust that close city-spacing does give good results, and is not just something "experts" like to do because its reminiscient of Civ3 or something like that.
DeepO, I'm quite certain all the cities in Aeson's diagram will get at least 6 workable tiles.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
We've got time before our first Settler comes online. But I think that the city-site that will have access to the Game has to be first.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
EDIT: Major edit as no one has responded yet.
quote:
2 questions: can all cities use 6 tiles at least? |
Yes they can, but I wouldn't recommend it as some of those 6 tiles will be less than useful for a while. Better to dump most of our pop into Workers and Settlers to improve and claim the terrain, as keeping that pop in our cities will just result in using Desert and Jungles.
Once everything is improved we dump the extra Workers back into the cities and at least from a population standpoint, we haven't lost anything. The commerce and production we pass up in the meantime is offset by making the terrain give more food, commerce and production through improvements.
With a setup like this, we'll probably end up driving the consuls mad with 'move this laborer here, that one there' type moves being made almost every turn. It definitely won't result in a 'static 6' type of arrangement. The only game I've ever seriously maxed out every tile every turn was a lot of fun in this regard, swapping laborers between 100's of cities every turn... but that was a Huge map, so this should be less fun at least. 
quote:
And which cities would be the best to disband first, if there are no terrain issues (e.g. building on SG)? |
Of the cities shown, 6 is the only one that screams 'temp' given it's relation to 1 and 5. We wouldn't need to disband it for a long while though, if ever. (by Hospitals if we and the game are still going by then)
Last edited by Aeson on 06-03-2003 at 08:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Yes they can, but I wouldn't recommend it as some of those 6 tiles will be less than useful for a while. Better to dump most of our pop into Workers and Settlers to improve and claim the terrain, as keeping that pop in our cities will just result in using Desert and Jungles.
|
I believe DeepO was thinking more in the long-term, and assuming we're not planning to disband any cities.
I like Aeson's original layout better than Theseus'. This has nothing to do with my opposition to ralphing (honestly!), but with best use of available land. The city two tiles from Apolyton in Theseus' plan will compete too much for tiles with the capital too early. Even if it is a temporary city, it will not be very productive unless we seriously reduce Apolyton's early potential.
On Aeson's map, I believe site 2 or 6 should be first. I'm leaning toward 6, since it's probably closer to our potential neighbors. So, the ordering I'm thinking of is something like 6, 2, 1. I'm also not sure about site 5; it seems to make things a bit crowded, and as far as we know will be just a jungle city.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2003 08:33
)
:b;
)
|