21-03-2003 04:40									#31
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Fine, I'll keep that in mind for my next bunch of tests.


Dominae

	21-03-2003 04:46									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

1,2,6,5, 4 seem good, but 3 seems mighty cramped and only in the desert- wont it hinder apolyton's growth? What if you move it a bit up the coast, next to the mountains but near the northern plains?

	21-03-2003 04:54									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Site 3 will be producing Warriors and Workers for quite some time, keeping its size (and therefore tile use) down. Eventually when we get Map Making, it should be a good city, with many Coast tiles and a couple of Hills.

Placing a city further up the Coast only reduces the number of Coast tiles available to the other city that will be founded up there. Site 3 will get to use those 2 Coasts that Apolyton will never benefit from, since it cannot build a Harbor.


Dominae

	21-03-2003 04:59									#34
	Put an end to popups!

That seems to be a compelling argument; but still- I am quite worried- how can we get good production if we are limiting the city's size to begin with. I don't really see how it can be much more productive as a size 2 city than as a larger one- but then again, you've played the game longer than I and probably know more about it.

	21-03-2003 05:06									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DarkCloud, that's a fair question. The answer, I think, lies in looking at the alternatives. We have a big desert, and so the best way to make use of it is to build cities along the coast (Coast tiles produce 2 Food once Harbors get built). We have room for 2 cities North of Apolyton along the coast. Placing the first one closer to Apolyton allows less overlap in Coast tiles for those two cities, which is a good thing since Coast is all they will be using once the Harbors go up.

You're right that the city at site 3 will not grow very much. But notice that it would not grow very much if it were up the Coast either. The solution is therefore to to have site 3 "borrrow" some tiles from Apolyton to get a good supply of Workers and Warriors. Having the city at site 3 grow too big before Harbors would be a bad idea, since it would have to work very bad tiles.


Dominae

	21-03-2003 05:09									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Fine, I'll keep that in mind for my next bunch of tests. Dominae

Great, let me know what you come up with.

	21-03-2003 05:23									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

I think city 5 works best founded one tile 8. That site requires fewer Worker turns before it can be viable and before irrigation can be brought up to the Plains. It also means less corruption in the city.

With Apolyton and city 2 both with Granaries, the next city can be founded on the Dyes and have a workable tile about the same time that city 5 as drawn would have it's own workable tile (8 and 88 being the best chop sites, as it keeps us from spending more time irrigating than we should). Founding a city on the Dyes means fewer Worker turns before we have them hooked up and are benefiting from the extra commerce. It also means easier defense of the luxury in times of war.

I very much doubt that city 6 will help block off the peninsula from explorers by the time it could be founded, so bumping it back to 7 (Dye city being 6) probably wouldn't make any difference in that regard. irrigation could be brought up to it by that time, making it a much more productive city.

	21-03-2003 05:29									#38
	Got spare money?

Which Dyes are you suggesting we found a city on, Aeson?

	21-03-2003 05:39									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

As many of them as possible.

I was talking about the Dyes which would be claimed by city 5 in this instance though.

	21-03-2003 05:52									#40
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hm, that's three cities within 2 tiles of one another (plus there's probably not much land West of the Dyes tile in question).

I was thinking of starting to cut through the Jungle around site 2 (like 1-1-4 from the city spot), since it will be our best city and there's River to benefit from there.

In my tests, it was not necessary to hook up the second Luxury so fast, since our cities are best kept under size 4 (some reaching size 5 once every few turns).

But, then again, placing the city across the River would help defensively.

Some more scouting would make the decision easier.


Dominae

	21-03-2003 20:36									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Which is why under a 1 desert city scheme I placed it last. Under a two desert city scheme, site #3 should still be after all the other listed cities with the second desert city even later.

I don't trust CDG not to place a city that crowds into site #5 if we don't make it a priority. Sure that city will take awhile before it's producitive, but it's absolutely esstinal and we may want an early Temple there to help build up culture.

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Expanding our reach in the northern direction is hardly a priority, since we know we have no competition in the direction. If by "reach" you mean borders, then might I point out that we gain absolutely nothing from having larger land area inside our borders other than greater score. The exact ordering is definitely not set in stone. But might I point out that site 5 will be mostly useless until we start chopping Jungle. Therefore its early use is solely for positioning purposes. I'm still not sure if that is worth the economic drawback. Dominae

	21-03-2003 20:41									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm opposed to moving the western river anchor city East.

1. It would effectively give CDG another row of tiles inside their cultural boundary.

2. It elimates a possible 3rd city on the river. (I take it the 3rd river city is to be placed on one of the two unexplored tiles?)

quote: Originally posted by Dominae The alternative you suggest is a good site for a city. However, my original thinking was that we want as many cities along the River in the Jungle as possible. Placing a city where you suggest would allow only 2 along the River, instead of 3. Also, I absolutely hate the idea of building Temples to gain access to resources (no offense!). A 60 Shield cost is quite an investment to get something we would have access for free if we just placed our cities differently. And 60 Shields is 2 Numidian Mercs., by the way. On the other hand, the site you suggest would be better in the long run. Once we figure out what lies in the darkness to the SE, a change in placement may very well be in order. Dominae

	22-03-2003 03:53									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Temple give you more than just the access. They improve the ability to defend by pushing back the FOW. This in turn can discourage someone else from building a city close to it.

As far as our city build/production plan: I dont think we want a second granary. We dont want to put cities in the jungle/desert without workers/improvements available to make then able to grow in short order. I do want one or two Mercs though. Just to parade for CDG to discourage them if nothing else.

	22-03-2003 04:15									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As I've just posted elsewhere, I think we need an intensive military focus, followed up by a "slingshot" of growth due to having fewer (just three) but larger towns / cities, as well as a probable surfeit of workers.

	22-03-2003 07:13									#45
	Suffering from ads?

Because City #2 has the Granary slated to be built first (which takes longer), I suggest that we build it first That should be up and running by the time Site #1 has built a few things.

E_T