This is to get the ball rolling on Settlement Strategies. Settlement Pattern, Density, and Site Criteria (and anything else I've left out) will be discussed in this thread. A second thread will discuss long term build queues. Long Term work goals and Provincial discussions will not be held until we see the lay of the land.

We will have our first settler and worker as soon as we start the game. It is expected that we will have our second by the 3rd or 4th chat depending on the presence of bonus food.

We need to have a concensus on settlement strategies in place by about the 2nd chat so that the Director of Expansion has something to work with.

Reserved for Index and Summaries of Proposed Settlement stategies.

This thread is now open for business. Please present your ideas or discuss those already posted.

Proposed by Domestic Consul:

Settlement Density: We should settle cities so that cities on rivers/fresh water can support 12 citizens under a non-despot government. Cities without fresh water should be able to support 6 citizens under a despot government. All of this is without directly sharing tiles.

I'd like to see what our initial terrain looks like first. Let's wait until the Creation Day Chat.

CT, this isn't about specific settlement sites, this is about the Strategies we should follow. To some extent this even extends to what we should consider in regards to settling our first city. Its never to soon to start planning strategies.

We should settle cities so that cities on rivers/fresh water can support 12 citizens under a non-despot government.
How is this limit determined? Most of us are used to mining grassland, but if we irrigate grassland, we need less land to support 12 citizens. Are we trying for maximum city density or not?

As a member of the East Royal Imperial Company, I dissent from Pet Shop Boys in the essence, and say, Go East.

I have several methods of my own. I don't care if the terrain is irrigated, mined, or not at all. All the methods are used in combination fitting on the terrain and potential settlement.

Method 1: No settling on terrain that does have bonus resources early in the game. If you settle on wheat, you won't get the bonus. Settle next to it.

Method 2: Flood Plains, Grassland, Jungle, Plains, Forest (non tundra based) should have a full 20 tile for the city.

Method 3: Hills, Desert, Tundra should have overlapping cities (some will never grow pass 12 so overlapping will allow 2 cities combined to have more than 12).

Method 4: Placing cites next to rivers and lakes are prefered over any other location to allow unhindered growth beyond city size 6. :goodjob:

Method 5: Coastal cities should be build even if it mean to lose potential 20 tile space. England is excellent on the coast.

Method 6: After contact on the same continent or coastal distanced continent, building cities to aggressively challenge their borders.

Lets concentrate on Settlement Density first.

I have proposed a relatively tight settlement pattern of city + 12 workable tiles if fresh water is available, or city + 6 workable tiles if no fresh water is available.

Double Stack has proposed a relively loose settlement pattern of city + 20 tiles in food rish areas, and city + max supportable in food poor areas.

To clarify for YNCS: planned improvements will depend on the city site chosen. If there are many low food tiles (desert, hills, mountains) then I would expect that we would irrigate many of the grasslands. Many of the details on long term work improvements will be determined once we see the lay of the land. I expect to have discussions on the optimal tile config for each city and allow the Director of Infrastructure to use these guidlelines to plan worker actions

Side note: By the way, I would expect that discussions actual city sites will be co-sponsored by the Director of Expansion and the Domestic Consulate.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ok, we've got the map of the starting location. We are in the far south and towards the corner of the map. Tundra and Mountains are both present in our starting location, so food might be tough.

I think we need to consider a tight build pattern.

With this type of start, I've had better results with a loose build pattern. Food, rather than shields, is the problem. The more squares available to each city, the faster the city can grow.

I would favour the loose pattern:

*We end up with more land in the land grab phase
*12 tiles per city is not best, as you want to work the best tiles and then as the years progress we get more out of the worse tiles and becomes less of a matter. By limiting to 12 we have NO choice but to work them all, bad policy.
*Will require too many cities to get enough land- remember land = production/opportunities for resources/and stops the enemies getting that land.
*too many cities = too much corruption.

Current Status:
1. Settlement Density:
A few proposals have been put foward for Settlement Density. I will begin polling these in the next 24 hours unless there is further discussion on this topic.

2. Settlement Pattern:
Limited discussion has taken place. Please make proposals on settlement pattern.

3. City Site Criteria:
Limited discussion has taken place. Please make proposals.



New Proposals from the Domestic Consul:
Settlement Pattern:
Very Flexible pattern. Only real consideration is that we be careful to allow for future locations when settling. IE: If there are decent sites on a short river then don't settle in the middle of the river so that the other sites would be silly.

Site Criteria:
1. Order of settlement: Priority should be placed on securing bonus resources (strategic, luxury, food, then other).
2. Fresh Water Criteria:
1st Priority is on Hill sites that will allow us to pass irrigation to dry areas (only applies if we have hills/mountains blocking an irrigation path.)
2nd Priority is to choose sites location on rivers.
3rd Priority is to choose sites with access to Lakes.
3.Sea Faring Bonus:
If we have access to 2 similiar sites (one coastal and 1 inland), Priority should be place on the coastal site to take advantage of our SeaFaring trait commerce bonus.


Please discuss, as these are the criteria that the Director of Expansion will use in proposing future settlement location.

3.Sea Faring Bonus:
If we have access to 2 similiar sites (one coastal and 1 inland), Priority should be place on the coastal site to take advantage of our SeaFaring trait commerce bonus.
The Sea Faring Bonus is something we have to keep firmly in mind, particularly if we're on a pangaea or large continent.

I have already made comments about city density.

With that caveat, I agree with the Consul's recommendations.

Always place cities on the coast if we can. A tight build on the coast and a looser build inland with good terrain is a good idea. Cities with tundra/coast should build harbors and then libraries/markets.

Once we have this first turnchat, we can start a dotmap.

I'm inclined to agree with Ginger. Our seafaring traits means we don't want to waste any coastal sites, however we also want to be able to grab as much land as possible in the initial expansion phase. If need be, we can expand quickly and then build cities to fill in the gaps we make in our territory.

I think we need a 20 turn turnchat to get a decent planning round with tiles to compare.
It is hopeless to run discussions like this after 10 turns only.

id say not to place citys closer than three tiles away from eachother, we could also go with ring city placement to reduce corruption but the downside of that is sometimes your have to mess up your pattern because it forces you to put citys in bad spots, or there are mountains or swamps where your supposed to put the citys.

Ring City Placement doesn't work in Conquests.

I cannot vouch for any option before we played almost 20 turns today, we need more map exloration to come up with a final solution.

I cannot vouch for any option before we played almost 20 turns today, we need more map exloration to come up with a final solution.

I agree, if we are on a small island then we need a tight build to get enough cities to compete, while if we're on the edge of a pangaea then we can spread out a bit more.

Don't worry, I won't start polling until we have a bigger picture of the land. I'm personnally in favor of Ginger Ale's suggestion right now: Tight at the coast and loose inland.

Personally I think that city density must be a product of terrain and intended victory condition. Since we know neither it would be difficult to decide ATM. However, as with any democracy a compromise must be reached in light of the fact that the victory condition will doubtless not be known until settlement strategy must be decided.

I would advocate a city density of 13 tiles/city. 1 tile for each citizen before hospitals plus one for the centre. I would not increase the density in low food regions since the sites needed cannot include mountains and therefore higher density will reduce the number of citizen worked tiles, and reduce MM flexibility also. Changes of government and the advent of steam will allow cities to grow beyond size 12 and will bring in to play the "new" specialists for C3C.

It is widely known that densities lower than 12 to 13/city results in large numbers of core tiles that cannot be worked until sanitation and hospitals, and that an ICS (or approximation) is powerful only for military victories since the high number of cities and the maintenance costs associated with that plus the number of city centre tiles removing workable tiles from the map make this strategy poor from Steam onwards.

I would also be careful in placing cities on coastal tiles. Commercially it is a good thing, but shield prductivity *could* be compromised. It may also be necessary to build a large number of harbours with the associated maintenance costs making a bid for Smiths almost mandatory.

Good Points M-B. And good to see you participating in the Demo Game.

Proposed Settlement Densities:

If I don't hear much more discussion I will begin polling these tonight so that the Director of Expansion has something to work with. The point next to the number is what will be stated in the poll option. The rest is a description. I've tried to make the options unbiased. I have left the names of the descriptive part also to avoid bias. I would welcome polling standards committee input on this possible poll.

Poll question:
What Settlement Density should we target during the general expansion phase?

Options:
1. Very Low density in High-food areas, low to medium density in low-food or coastal areas
2. Low Density. Allow for tile changes over the course of the game.
3. Medium to low Density, coastal caution.
4. Low to Medium inland. Medium to High density on the coast.
5. Medium Density using rough CxxC pattern.
6. Medium Density if fresh water, high density if not.
7. Other - Please include a post with what you want.
8. Abstain.

1st Post narrative:
We must decide as a nation what we want our settlement density to be during general expansion. At this point this is to cover the next 30-50 turns. During this time we should get between 4 and 8 additional settlers. Tactical discussions will include settlement order and site selection (dot maps).

Discussion can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113150

A map of our currently known territory is at the bottom of this post.

For the purposes of the poll please refer to the following definitions:
Very Low Density: Allowing the full 21 tiles per city.
Low Density: Anything allowing more than 14 (but less than 20) workable tiles per city.
Medium Density: Allowing between 8-13 workable tiles per city.
High Density: Allowing 7 or less tiles per city.

Options:
1. Very Low density in High-food areas, low to medium density in low-food or coastal areas
High food areas should have 20 tiles available. Low food areas (tundra, desert) should use overlapping tiles. Exceptions should be made in coastal areas to allow for some overlap..
2. Low Density. Allow for tile changes over the course of the game.
3. Medium to low Density, coastal caution.
13 tiles per city in all areas and be careful with initial coastal placement as they could make harbors necessary thus eating into the Seafaring commercial bonus.
4. Low to Medium inland. Medium to High density on the coast.
A tight build on the coast and a looser build inland with good terrain to maximize seafaring trait.
5. Medium Density using rough CxxC pattern.
Cities no closer than 3 tiles away from each other.
6. Medium Density if fresh water, high density if not.
13 Tiles to support 12 citizens if fresh water, 7 tiles to support 6 citizens if aqueduct needed.
7. Other - Please include a post with what you want.
8. Abstain.

Poll Interpretation: This will provide guidance to the Director of Expansion for use in the tactical discussions and decisions. The options are in a general spectrum from less dense to more dense. It is expected that the mean of the votes will be used in designing the tactical plans. If for some reason there is heavy support (25+%) on both ends of the spectrum then poll will be invalidated and discussions will be expanded before re-polling.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/DG6_BC3200_India.jpg

Excellent work MOTH :D

You make me proud, esteemed Colleague.

I would surely go for Medium build. However, you should also as External Consul specify the following grand policies:

1. Settler escorts (Barbarians raging, plus Expansion controls escorts)
2. Opening territory for colonization, prioritize expansion zones in an order
3. City placement criteria per city, preference ladder
4. city improvement build policies

you already covered settlement pattern very well.

There have been some comments asking what our victory condition is. Please participate in the initial discussion on victory condition. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113496)

Also, random barbs were selected, and given the lack of GH in the explored area there is a very strong possibility that there are NO barbs at all. We cannot count on this yet, just passing along what was seen in the game so far.

Thanks Provolution,
I myself will be voting for #3, the Medium density with coastal caution.

BTW, I am Domestic Consul, not External. You points 1 and 2 are part of exploration and therefor part of Tim's area. There is some crossover in regards to number 2, which will be a separate thead asking how aggressively we should settle the Indian border. That will be a quicky for now as I have to go to a meeting soon.

Point 3 is being discussed in this thread and will be polled separately.

Point 4 is covered in a separate thread and will discuss targeted improvements for each city as we near founding them.

You missed out: Infrastructure Strategies and targets. This is in a separate discussion thread.

Good point MOTH

I would actually have a Temperate Zone Strategy 4 and a Boreal Zone Strategy 3, you can basically make a East West Line where you divide this.

Looks like some excellent land, but we have neighbors already. Are we going to build close in to start, or send initial settlers to try to gain as much ground between us and the AI early?

I would say a medium density while trying to get on the rivers and close to india to stunt there growth.

Settlement density has been set. The remaining settlement decisions info site criteria/priority. Settlement direction will be evolving and currently indicates an agressive build towards the Indian border.

Deeper topics that may be raised near the end of the term include: Should we start planning on a Palace move?

As for settlement Criteria and Priority, I put forward the following as criteria priorities:

1. Resouces:
Priority should be placed on securing bonus resources (strategic, luxury, food, then other).
2. Fresh Water Criteria:
1st Priority is on Hill sites that will allow us to pass irrigation to dry areas (only applies if we have hills/mountains blocking an irrigation path.)
2nd Priority is to choose sites location on rivers.
3rd Priority is to choose sites with access to Lakes.
3. Border expansion: choose sites that will complement existing cultural borders and limit gaps in which the AI could settle.
4. Inland sites that fit well with a density of 13 useable tiles.
5. Coastal sites that fit well with a density of 13 useable tiles.

All 5 criteria will need to be considered as settlement sites are proposed and selected.

Carefully observing the crowd, Provolution munches some mammoth beef, and trudges on with some promiscuos lady in mammoth pelt.

DaveShack's eyes just about pop out of their sockets... Under his breath he can be heard muttering "mammoth beef -- now where did he get that? And who is that with him? Do we have contact with another tribe that the people haven't been told about?"

Perhaps he's actually eating elephant meat (being trained for war once people are chivalrous enough to ride them?).

To keep it on topic, the strategy looks good. A palace move would reduce distance corruption in many cities, certainly. But more on that when we have more cities.