The age of creation is long past. The age of the reptiles vanished into the dust. The age of our wandering ancestors is coming to a close. It is the dawn of a new age, The Age of Civilization. Every civilization must start somewhere, and that is the decision we are faced with today.
Known Land:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/DG6-BC4000-pre.jpg

Where shall we settle? Where shall we live that shall allow us to rise up against the other nations? The floor is open for discussion.

"Settle on the spot" should always be considered first.
Only (and only if) the location is bad, should a move be considered. This location is not bad (compared to the rest of the visible tiles) so moving is not an option. And we should never leave the river nor the coast.

Our 2nd city can be in a better location, but the first city is correctly placed. Settle down !

If we move off the wines, 1 SE, and irrigate the two wines, and mine 1 BG and 1 grassland, we can have a 6 turn settler factory at size 4-5. Move SW!

Found the proud city of camelot.

another option is to go right (keypad no.6) and found the city there. This way it leaves some fish for a city south of the capital, and that may be required as it looks like tundra down there.

If we move off the wines, 1 SE, and irrigate the two wines, and mine 1 BG and 1 grassland, we can have a 6 turn settler factory at size 4-5. Move SW!

Which is it, SE or SW? ;)

To repeat what Rik said, there needs to be a compelling reason to move. I lean towards settling in place.

Daveshack, honorable President

Settle ON the spot, do not waste 1 turn production, do not waste the free aqueduct, and
quickly get the wine under our wings. We are extremely well off where we are.

I think GA meant SE. We should absoutely move. The Wines on Grass are a Bonus Food tile and we should not settle on them. If we are a Settler Farm then we won't go above size 5 for a very long time, so the river is less important. It might actually be possible to run a size 4-5 combo warrior-settler pump as I think we might have plenty of shields in 6 turns.

Sucha Soorma suggested going East. This takes the tundra-forest out of the picture which can be usefull as part of the settler pump.

I will start working out some start combo's to get us running as the settler pump or combo pump. I wil also work one out for settling in place and I think you will see that it is sub-optimal.

MOTH, now is the challenge to manage the levels of External Consul and Director of Expansion, so really consider your role to Snipelfritz now.

Provolution,
I see this as a tactical discussion and my input is as a citizen. I am preparing some initial analysis and will follow this afternoon with a deeper look at each potential location for Camelot.

In my official capacities, I am re-starting the Domestic Consulate discussions now that we know some of the lay of the land. Some of this is the long-term improvement goals for Camelot.

Some initial limited analysis of 3 proposed sites and I will propose a 4th of 2 tiles to the SW:
My fog gazing skills reveal no other special tiles.

Starting location:
City Center: Extra commerce due to wines, river, and coastal
20 Other Tiles: 1 Wine-Grass-River, 2 BG, 1 Mountain, 1 Forest (Tundra),2 Grass, 1 Coast, 2 Coast-Fish, 10 Fog (2 Coast, 5 Grass+?, 1 Forest (grass), 1 Forest (Tundra), 1 Tundra)
Advantages: No Movement necessary; can be 8 turn combo military/settler pump; no Aquaduct needed.

1 SE (Ginger Ale's Location):
City Center: Extra commerce due to coastal
20 Other Tiles: 2 Wine-Grass-River, 2 BG, 1 Mountain, 1 Forest (Tundra),1 Grass, 1 Coast, 2 Coast-Fish, 1 Sea, 9 Fog (3 Coast, 2 Grass+?, 1 Tundra, 3 Sea)
Advantages: Can be 6 turn Settler Pump (maybe warriors too)

1 E (Sucha Soorma's Location):
City Center: Extra commerce due to coastal
20 Other Tiles: 2 Wine-Grass-River, 2 BG, 1 Mountain, 1 Grass, 1 Coast, 1 Coast-Fish, 1 Sea, 12 Fog (3 Coast, 2 Grass+?, 1 Forest(Grass), 3 Sea, 3 ???)
Advantages: Can be 6 turn Settler Pump (maybe warriors too)

2 SW (MOTH's bad Location): (Ok, forget I even mentioned this one)
City Center: Extra commerce due to coastal and River
20 Other Tiles: 2 Wine-Grass-River, 1 BG, 1 Mountain, 1 Grass, 1 Coast, 2 Coast-Fish, 1 Sea, 10 Fog (2 Coast, 1 Grass+?, 1 Forest(Tundra), 1 Sea, 1 Mountain, 4 ???)
Advantages: Can be 6 turn settler pump; no Aquaduct needed.
Additional Disadvantage: Move twice, probably more Tundra.

I will be providing deeper analysis this afternoon, but here is some rough ideas on when we grow in population assuming that we irrigate both Wines and do not have a Granary. The number in parentheses after the turn is the turn if we settle in place with only one bonus food (wine).

Turn 8(7): Size 2
Turn 14(14): Size 3
Turn 19(21): Size 4
Turn 24(28): Size 5
Turn 29(35): Size 6
Turn 34(42): Full food bin.

Did you calculate in the lost turn by moving to another tile, and do you account for the added value of being next to a river tile for early commercial bonus (techs, extra gold) and the free aqueduct ? I honestly do not think we should sweat that extra food for losing out a free aqueduct and the river gold bonus, not to mention the river military defense bonus of 25 %, which will save unit builds and upkeep. Additionally, we get more land tiles inland where we stay, and all bonus and luxury resources, and more hills and mountains which may have iron. Finally,varied terrain may be good so we can alter tile usage.

Yes, the turn moving is factored in. The extra commerce in the city center will even out by about turn 35 due to the extra population working the other river tiles (and possibly earlier if we occassionally don't need the shields and work the fish tiles.)

The lost aquaduct is a consideration, but if Camelot works as a settler or combo warrior/settler pump and eventually a military/worker pump we won't need the aquaduct until we are done with the expansion.

The real added value is with the food. Without a granary we are getting we are talking about 2 more population every 35 turns. With a Granary its even better with 1 more population every 12 turns (and one of then wines can be shared 2 out of every 3 turns with another city.). This should give us the edge over the AIs and allow us to settler 1 to 3 more cities before we run out of room (depending on if we find another high-food area.)

Moving SE wouldn't lose many riverside tiles (only one), but with so many sea tiles it might be lacking in shields once it gets to size 12. I guess that's more of a midgame problem.

I much prefer to stay put.

Current location looks pretty solid to me. On a luxury, BG tiles nearby, access to water. Settle it now, start the exploration.

-- Ravensfire

A move to the west could be a possibility. It would be on the river and have both wines and BGs. The disadvantage is that it is not coastal. Being one tile inland, it would have two coast tiles (although one is a fish) without the possibility of a harbor.

I second Ravensfire here, settle on the spot, no funky maneuvering.

The major benefits to founding on the existing spot are it’s on a river (we don’t have to build an aqueduct), it’s costal (extra commerce for a Commercial civ plus we can build early carraghs if we so choose), and by settling immediately we don’t waste a turn. The biggest downsides are that we waste the food potential of an irrigated wine, plus because the benefits of the city square are fixed, we won’t get the commerce benefits of the river or the wine. If we found on the start we get 2 food, 1 shield, and 4 commerce; and if we move SE or E the city square also will generate 2/1/4. An additional weakness of the starting position is that it’s at the extreme edge of the map, usually not an ideal location for a capital.

I don’t have a problem with moving several tiles in order to find a superior spot to found my capital. I’d be inclined to move the worker north to the mountain top so we could see additional tiles, and make my founding decision then. However, I can certainly understand why many citizens would prefer not to do this. In that case, I suggest we move SE or E to establish our capital. I have a slight preference for E because that would avoid including tundra squares in the capital radius, although that’s not a major consideration for the early part of the game.

I also support the settle on the spot gang. The main reason is the two fish squares, which would be able to support hasty city growth should the need arise. We have 2 bonus grassland river squares as well to start us off, not to mention we still have the second wine grassland (no bonus shield I assume) to give us even more growth potential. One problem is the shortage of shield availability, but we can do nothing about it till city two is built. Finally it's cool to have luxuries in 4000 BC.

Gregski, I agree that we do not need to move and should stay, we would get plenty of food where we are at, and we got plenty of time to cover the territory with such a start.

I'd rather use a 2/1/1 (food/shields/gold) regular grassland than a 2/0/2 fish, so the fish are not helpful before map making or a new government (with a harbor and new goverment they would provide 4 food).

Its probably the best to settle on place, because there is lots of food even if we lose 1 wine tile. If we move SE then we'll later in the game lack shields. Anyway, nice starting position.

This is more emperor. We need all the bonus food we can get. The cost of a free aquaduct is not worth delaying our settler pump production.

I just did some analysis. Assuming that we will build warrior-curragh-curragh-warrior in the most efficient manner (least sheild loss) followed by a settler. The following are the turn #'s that each will be available and the final state of each city at that time. I am assuming that we will irrigate/road the wine(s) first and then start on mining/roading the bonus grasses.
Note that settling in place is higher shield production because its not irrigating the second wine and isn't working the 2nd wine for food growth.


in place 1 tile SE
Warrior1 Turn 5 Turn 6
Curragh1 Turn 12 Turn 14
Curragh2 Turn 16 Turn 20
Warrior2 Turn 19 Turn 23
Settler1 Turn 26 (now size 2.14) Turn 30 (now size 4.4)
Warrior3 Turn 29 Turn 32
Settler2 Turn 35 (now size 2.0) Turn 38 (now size 3.16)
Granary Turn 49 (now size 3.18) Turn 48 (now size 4.12)
Settler3 military then settlers Turn 53 (now size 4.10)


At this point "In Place" is a 8 turn combo pump and "SE" is a 6 turn settler pump with occasional military due to extra shields.

As has been pointed out settling on the stop is a massive waste of resources. we are going to need to pump settlers from this city so it won't go beyond 6.

I say on the spot, the combo allows a quicker expansion, so we can get more goodie huts, and plan a much better infastructure, position our troops, cut quicker tech deals and so on. The faster we move out initially is key.

Additionally, when our empire grows big enough, I recommend moving the capitol to a more central location. Being this close to the bottom of the map pose a problem in the future with corruption. So the faster we grow and change capitol, the better in the long run.

Food is power. Getting a settler out every 6 turns from 53 vs a warrior and settler every 8 turns from turn 58 will result in a bigger empire at 1000 BC. This is assuming that we build 2 settlers before a granary. If we build the Granarys first then the speed which the settler pump gets ahead is that much greater.

Food is power in the early game. Lets not waste what could be one of the only 2 food bonus tiles in our reach.

MOTH, thank you for providing numbers. Provolution, I might switch my vote depending on how the numbers look -- can't take a long time to think about it right now, but tonight for sure. :)

A note on my above numbers. The first curragh and warriors can be swapped if we move SE at no additional sheild loss. If we do curragh first it will be available on turn 8 and the warrior on turn 14. The "in place" option would have higher shield loss.

The main choices
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/cityoneplacement1.JPG
Red = Settle on the spot
Blue = move 1 tile SE
Yellow = move 1 tile E

I say we talk the president into loading up the save and moving the worker north onto the mountain to show that area more. Then base our decision from there.

If there is some cattle or anything to the northwest in the twilight zone, I would say keep it where it is.

If the red square was a BG square, I'd go for building in place. However, losing the food bonus by not moving is a detriment, particularly once we've got our settler factory working. I like moving SE to the blue square.

Daveshack, honorable President

Settle ON the spot, do not waste 1 turn production, do not waste the free aqueduct, ...

And do not pass go? :p

Personally, I don't like settling on bonus food sources, especially when they lead to a settler factory. However, I don't like settling in tundra either, or moving off of a river (free aqueduct).

Honestly , building ojn the spot is the way to go, we got more shields for the city long term, and the city becomes more scaleable, we got a port, we get the aqueduct, we get the 25 % river defense bonus, the river gold, plus we got more tiles inland we cannot see. Going SE or E will give us more ocean tiles, and we lose both the aqueduct, river gold and defense bonus, as well as the bonus fish. All we need is a different settler factory, and that is the way to go.

CRITICAL INFORMATION:

During despotism, which we wil have for most of Term One, we lose 1 food over 2 foods anyways, so we wil not benefit from the food bonus for a long long while. What is key now is to get one settler out to make a much better settler factory, and preserve the inherent advantages of making the capital a stronger city until we relocate Capital. The Capital will have no corruption, and should therefore not be a settler factory, but a core city. To maximize this core city status, it will surely need an aqueduct.

Provo, you got that despot penalty for grass wine wrong. We will benefit immediately. These tiles are already worth 3 food - 1 for the despot penalty. Irrigation will get them to 4 food - 1 for the despot penalty.

You've also got it worng about the river bonus. We will get this for the Wine tile either way as we will be working the tile. Its just on that tile instead of the city center. Going SE doesn't lose the fish either.

Too get a better settler factory we need to better bonus food. Will we find 2 cows or 3 wine near enough that corruption won't cripple the settler factory. Not very likely.

Roll Playing wise, it is nice to say that all of our principal cities are 1st generation descendants from our mother Camelot city. There will be plenty of time to build the core once we finish the expansion phase. As someone pointed out, we may want to move the capitol anyways to reduce corruption. Why build the city up if we are going to abandon it in favor of a new Camelot?

Quick example: (yes, this is under despotism).

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/dg6_ct_foodsample.gif

Thanks for that info, CT.

IMHO, we should settle on spot and irr. the wines. Makes sense.

Oh, what are we naming this fair city?

SaaM

May I ask this again?

I say we talk the president into loading up the save and moving the worker north onto the mountain to show that area more. Then base our decision from there.

If a valid instruction shows up to move worker 1N and immediately stop, I will of course play it that way. :D

However this would waste 2 worker moves.

If a valid instruction shows up to move worker 1N and immediately stop, I will of course play it that way. :D

However this would waste 2 worker moves.

And being this is emperor level, that could cost us a vital city or two. Who knows how close the AI is.

By my count the opinions expressed are split just about evenly. I think Snipelfritz is going to have to poll this.

I would just like to offer a final arguement:
Ask any of the top players, Food is Power. The early game is critical for establishing the power of your empire by expanding as quickly as possible.

If we move SE, we can have 3 settlers by turn 53 and one every 6 turns after that if we move our settler and irrigate both Wines.

If we settle in place, we can have 3 settlers by turn 58 and one every 8 turns after that as we will only have one irrigated Wine.

Moving SE is a stronger start due to the +4 food per turn instead of +3.

MOTH, did you calculate in the need for early gold (we got one more gold by settling by river), the value of aqueduct long term, military defense bonus for riverine positions and its inherent economic value, long term flexibility of tileusage inland and the fact that we need to cover the map as soon as possible with scouts?

The + 4 per turn will become +3 due to Despotism, compared to +2 per turn.
I am also unsure about the time spent working the tiles, if that is accounted for, or if he counted 4 food from turn 1 (it is indeed 3 food, not 4).

So deduct the time spent for irrigating in turns, deduct the extra gold from the research speed lost, count in that we lose out several inland tiles, recognize the economic value of + 25 % river defense for limiting military police.

We will probably be stuck with Camelot as Capital for a long while, so we better make it a combined city, and not a sheer settler factory.

There is no doubt that I will poll this. I'm just waiting for discussion to die down. I probably will poll this some time tomorrow, Saturday March 5th. Here's my options so far:

1.Settle on the spot
2.Settle one tile east
3.Settle one tile south east
4.Other(please specify)
5.Request worker move 1 tile north
6.Abstain

Feel free to comment on these options.

Hi Provolution,
I'm not sure you are understanding about the Food Bonus. Each of the Wine tile can get +3 Net food when Irrigated, which results in the total of +4 once hey are irrigated.

Short Answer: Yes, all that you mention is accounted for.

Long Answer: mnemonics: IP = In Place; SE = 1 Tile SE

Gold: Remember that the despot penalty will apply so that Wine+River+Road will only get 2 gold. The city center will get 3 or 4 (I'll use 4) due to the SeaFaring bonus.
The break even point is turn 34 at which point SE is getting 2 more GPT. The largest deficit is 15 net gold on turn 23.

Worker turns: Are more efficient for SE as worker doesn't have to move to start. Also, Irrigation goes quicker than Mining.

Inland tiles are not lost - they will be used by other cities. If we don't move SE some of the Coast and Sea tiles will never be used as another city cannot be placed to use them.

River Defense - I don't count at all, as we should never be attacked.

By my count the opinions expressed are split just about evenly. I think Snipelfritz is going to have to poll this.

I would just like to offer a final arguement:
Ask any of the top players, Food is Power. The early game is critical for establishing the power of your empire by expanding as quickly as possible.

If we move SE, we can have 3 settlers by turn 53 and one every 6 turns after that if we move our settler and irrigate both Wines.

If we settle in place, we can have 3 settlers by turn 58 and one every 8 turns after that as we will only have one irrigated Wine.

Moving SE is a stronger start due to the +4 food per turn instead of +3.

Why anyone would move away from the river is beyond me. With no free Aqueduct, it will cost us in the long run. We can enlist our second city to become a Settler factory.

Vote on the spot, the only sound solution.

I agree with DZ here, I am 55-45 % for the Spot. I know it is a close call, but strategic location also means we get to be one move closer to the piece of action. If we go farther south, the settlers would have to travel on tile longer than needed.

After reading through the thread, and going against my usual build on rivers, I must join with the crowd and say move the settler SE.

Where would you find another settler factory? If there is no food bonus around us that is in close enough range so corruption isn't a problem, then not moving the settler would be the biggest mistake. It is a huge risk relying on the fog of war to give us another settler factory.

Build on the Spot!
If the orginal spot is atleast good, than it is a waste to move

This is my phantasy location, but I fear that it really is just tundra.

2 SW (MOTH's bad Location): (Ok, forget I even mentioned this one)
City Center: Extra commerce due to coastal and River
20 Other Tiles: 2 Wine-Grass-River, 1 BG, 1 Mountain, 1 Grass, 1 Coast, 2 Coast-Fish, 1 Sea, 10 Fog (2 Coast, 1 Grass+?, 1 Forest(Tundra), 1 Sea, 1 Mountain, 4 ???)
Advantages: Can be 6 turn settler pump; no Aquaduct needed.
Additional Disadvantage: Move twice, probably more Tundra.


I recommend moving 1 West (the forest) and see what's seen.
I think we shouldn't settle on forest, but cut it down to speed up the Granary. I bet we'll end up settling on the river bonus grass to the N, but lets look around a turn or 2.

If we build on the wines, we lose it as a trade good, no? (It's been a while).

IF SO, DON'T! Those will be great for diplomacy!

If we build on the wines, we lose it as a trade good, no? (It's been a while).

IF SO, DON'T! Those will be great for diplomacy!

We don't lose them for trade if we build on them.

We don't lose it, we get it right away. I am all for Spot.

You get it right away and lose 1 food, rather than waiting 7 turns and gaining them and 1 food. Obviously the latter is the better deal.

You get it right away and lose 1 food, rather than waiting 7 turns and gaining them and 1 food. Obviously the latter is the better deal.

And won't it be a shame to waste all that food unless we stop and build an Aqueduct that we could have had for free? When a river settlement opportunity presents itself on the first turn, you don't move away from it.

And won't it be a shame to waste all that food unless we stop and build an Aqueduct that we could have had for free? When a river settlement opportunity presents itself on the first turn, you don't move away from it.

Ah, goody, an argument.

It's better for the long run DZ - in fact, we won't even need an aqueduct in this city for a while, because if we move off the wines and irrigate them, we'll have a settler factory at size 4 and 5 that won't need to grow past size 6 for a while.

There are some times you do need to move off a river; this is one of them.

What this argument really is, is: Settler Factory vs. No Settler Factory. I think the choice is obvious. ;)


edit: Also, snipelfritz, can you poll these options fairly soon? It'll make my job putting build queues and laborer allocations together easier, as I know what tile we will settle on.

When a river settlement opportunity presents itself on the first turn, you don't move away from it.
...unless a better opportunity presents itself. Moving off of the river loses us the free aqueduct, but we get the food high tiles. That means we can utilize the shield high tiles around our start that much earlier. Plus it's on the coast. This'll be a power city once the aqueduct is built.

Also, like Ginger Ale said, we won't need an aqueduct for a while, as it will be a settler factory.

Settle on spot gives us

25 % defense bonus (More defensive value per unit for free)
Free Aqueduct
1 turn production
1 tile closer to the expansion area (1 turn production saved due to move per new city)
1 tile less of corrupting distance from the center (Capital location)
Tile usage flexibility
Access to more forest for rushing builds
More Shields
optimal coverage of tile resources
Effective use of production capacity
faster early technology development
Quicker exploration and expansion in critical phase
We do not know if this is an island, a continent or Pangea
Better overall tile-usage to the rest of the land
Scaleability of city and long term growth
Our very first city should be strong
Allows for quicker migration to wonder builds

What we forsake

1 food production per turn after 7 turns

What we forsake

1 food production per turn after 7 turns
Which will help us excel on all of the other points you make for justifying settling on the spot. More food = more cities = more gold/tech = why we should move the settler one tile SE.

Regent Man

I know this is a close call of alternatives (no clue why E was even mentioned), but I am 55-45 % for staying on the spot, and it seems it will be a 65 % support for this proposal.

Only a poll will tell... ;)

Settle on spot gives us

25 % defense bonus (More defensive value per unit for free)
Free Aqueduct
1 turn production
1 tile closer to the expansion area (1 turn production saved due to move per new city)
1 tile less of corrupting distance from the center (Capital location)
Tile usage flexibility
Access to more forest for rushing builds
More Shields
optimal coverage of tile resources
Effective use of production capacity
faster early technology development
Quicker exploration and expansion in critical phase
We do not know if this is an island, a continent or Pangea
Better overall tile-usage to the rest of the land
Scaleability of city and long term growth
Our very first city should be strong
Allows for quicker migration to wonder builds

What we forsake

1 food production per turn after 7 turns

We also get:

More coast = more commerce, in a Republic, it'll produce 3 commerce apiece, if we work 5 of them, and have a library and university, that's 28 commerce from only 5 laborers!
Still get a river
Worker can start irrigation of wines quicker for more growth
We get 2 wines to irrigate vs. 1
Saves the wine's commerce (would be 4 in Republic with a road!)

Obviously it's pointless to continue arguing. Let's poll move E or SE (I don't care which), or settle on the spot.

We also get:

More coast = more commerce, in a Republic, it'll produce 3 commerce apiece, if we work 5 of them, and have a library and university, that's 28 commerce from only 5 laborers!
Still get a river
Worker can start irrigation of wines quicker for more growth
We get 2 wines to irrigate vs. 1
Saves the wine's commerce (would be 4 in Republic with a road!)

Obviously it's pointless to continue arguing. Let's poll move E or SE (I don't care which), or settle on the spot.

We still get 5 ocean tiles with The Spot, of which 2 are bonus fish resources
We do NOT get the city build river bonuses going SE, just check the map
Which means, we lose out extra gold, 25 % defense AND free aqueduct
I would pick quicker city build and growth any time over quicker tile improvement, city build.
The last commerce during a potential future Republic s of spurious and negligible nature compared to all of the river down to the delta, forests, more land inland, as well as that far W we can see a mountaing which limits city building oportunities farther West. Building SE would render a lot of Western lands useless.

Also, considering other policies.

The Philsophy gambit wins the tech poll, most likely, construction and Aqueduct will come very late this Term, if at all. This means, settle on the Spot is the only guarantee we have to get a scaleable wonder city at this point, and we do not waste this chance.

Here are two tables for 10 turns based on if we settle SE or on the spot. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2601913&postcount=20) It uses the queue of Warrior -> Curragh -> Warrior

Hope this is what you wanted Provolution.

Here's the Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113602)

Move the worker on to the mountain to see the terrain better.
If no compelling reason not to the whack it on "1se". Food needed for settler splurge.

Worried about a coastal capitol though - but the turns wasted by moving it inland.... :rolleyes:

i voted to stay... i think that having the wine and free aquaduct is worth staying there, besides i like to stay where ever i am (even if its bad) because i like the challenge