 |
CP orders 1620AD
This poll is closed. |
| A: Only build troops and weapons |
   |
2 |
20.00% |
| A0: Only build welfare and growth improvements(Science,trade,happiness) |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| A1: build specific science improvements |
   |
4 |
40.00% |
| A2: build specific trade improvements |
   |
5 |
50.00% |
| A3: build specific happiness improvements |
   |
4 |
40.00% |
| A: build troops and improvements(as prefered in A0...A3 |
   |
9 |
90.00% |
| B: build more cities (some <5/session) |
   |
2 |
20.00% |
| B: build more cities (a lot >5/session) |
   |
5 |
50.00% |
| B: no need to build more cities, we will conquer what we need |
   |
3 |
30.00% |
| C: No need to build new settlers/engineers |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| C: Build more settlers (so we have 1set/5cities) |
   |
0 |
0% |
| C: Build more settlers (so we have 1set/2cities) |
   |
4 |
40.00% |
| C: Build more settlers (so we have 1set/1city) |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| C: Build more settlers (so we have 2set/1city) |
   |
3 |
30.00% |
| D: banana plantation |
   |
3 |
30.00% |
| Total: |
10 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999 time: 00:30
|
|
Why build more Settlers now that we are researching Explosives to get Engineers? They both cost the same, so there is no trade-off of value vs cost.
Let us build things that are newer, like Fanatics, and infrastructure as needed individually by cities.
Any new cities we build should have defensive units ready to move in on the day the city is built. Any new city is vulnerable to getting destroyed or captured by a wandering enemy unit if it isn't well-defended from the first turn, and we could lose some valuable techs.
When we start getting Engineers to replace Settlers that establish cities, and Fanatics or Musketeers to move into new cities, THEN we can build new cities.
I don't like the locatiions of the proposed cities near Imperialis. There is too much overlap, and it begins to feel like ICS, which we *did* agree not to do.
The 2 cities NE of Flood don't seem too bad, especially the one next to the river.
The one NE of the Greeks seems risky. Unless the Settler irrigates some river squares, the city will basically starve. And I see some irrigation near the Diplomat, so there is likely a city very close nearby. It is probably Zulu; they have 10 cities, and we can see some to the east of this area. It would be easy to lose that one almost as quickly as it is established.

|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sparrowhawk

|
 |
Canada CST
Apr 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by cavebear
I don't like the locatiions of the proposed cities near Imperialis. There is too much overlap, and it begins to feel like ICS, which we *did* agree not to do.
|
While I agree that overlap does not mean ICS, I think Cavebear is right that we should not overlap any of our cities (I don't think we have yet, and I don't think we should start now). This is a huge map, surely we don't need to overlap city sites?
I suggest a city be built to the North...
Bottom line, I think new cities are the way to go, as in order to have a decent science rate in Fundamentalism, we will need a lot of cities, and we have to room to grow, why not make use of it?
Respectively submitted,
* Sparrowhawk Foreign Minister
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|