Here is the Domestic Ministry, for all your domestic needs. I dont have experience with demo games, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Research order:
1-Iron Working
2-The Wheel
3-? @ ?
4-? @ ?
5-? @ ?

Wonder built with early SGL (potentially)
The Colossus (because it's the only one we can build)

Minister Azzaman ... can I suggest you read the previous discussions ... IIRC ... IW is number one tech, then Wheel ... or ya could done do sum pollin' :p

Oh ar u da Minster if'n i got problums wid da lidle missuss ... like can ya get rid of her for me? ... pleeeease ;)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/augustus04.jpg

We need to know where we should place the first settler.

Of course it will depend on what our explorers uncover, but my first guess would be 3 NW of our capital - inland looks more hospitable than the coast so far, it is on a river, it will be able to share a food bonus on turns when our capital doesn't need one, and troops will be able to move between towns in one turn (once roads are built) for quick defense.

We now have 2 pop ... what are your thoughts on city tiles to be worked?

the cow and the flood plain + wheat would be good to work on, but IIRC, someone had a table on what tiles needed to be worked and when. i think it was chamnix.

Check out the attachments to this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2971822&postcount=30)

That shows my conclusions on which tiles to work to minimize waste and maximize growth (one is for warrior as our second build, the other is for curragh as second build). I'm certainly not going to guarantee that is the best possible, but until someone finds something better, I think we should probably stick to it.

We have found some more wheat. I think that settling right near that resource will be great for our civilization. We could make that city a worker factory.

I agree – obviously plans are subject to change as we learn more about our surroundings, but I think our second town could be near the goody huts as a military factory (some BGs plus a couple forests). This town could build a barracks first (with a forest chop?) and then warriors for upgrade (if we have iron nearby) or hoplites and chariots (if we have horses) or archers (if we lack everything). Our third town could be by the wheat and be a worker factory as suggested by classical hero. By then we will desperately need another coastal town to start producing (suicide?) curraghs/galleys to locate the other continent.

ATM, i would say to settle 1SW of the other Floodplain+wheat.

ATM, i would say to settle 1SW of the other Floodplain+wheat.
Are you referring to this site.

that would be the site i'm referring to

Start a poll for that site then.

I'll do it tomorrow. If i dont go to bed now, my dad is going to kill me.

We do have ten turns to do that, according to turns left, but that will change once we get working on that forest.

I think it would be wise to know what terrain is further north before we could make such a decision

I’m not sure I like that site. I would prefer to be on the river, and it is an awkward distance from the capital – too far to effectively use all tiles, but too close to eventually put another town between it and the capital later.

I also think our second warrior should be out exploring – we don’t need the MP at all until size 3, and even then we can use the luxury slider for the 4 turns we are at size 3 before our settler is produced. Our first warrior can go out searching for contacts while our second warrior explores the immediate area for city sites before returning for MP eventually. I think information regarding our surroundings is much more important than a couple gold toward science.

Ask Defence about the second warrior.

build the second city along the river next to the wheat that way we won't need an aqueduct and we can irrigate the wheat for fast growth and use it as another warrior-settle factory while the first city switches to buildings and grows more

Domestic, please come up with some long term ideas that you want for your ministry. The earlier we can get think far ahead, the better. Basically we need some idea where we can put the settlers.

I would like to see the city built to the NE of the wheat

Is the world map anymore expanded from WorldMap1 ... if so could you post that

Ok- I took a screen shot from our last turn (13) and made some ugly scribbles on it - but hopefully it will serve as a good frame of reference for discussion. Thanks Black Hole!

It sounds like we've decided on a location for our next city (I've marked it as a red circle with a #1)

And there's been some discussion of a second city by the other Ivory (I've marked a possible location with sea access - so we can get boats out - as a second red circle with a #2) What do you think?

Also - as long as I'm at it - I've drawn a couple options for road paths. (again, I apologize for my horrendous MSpaint skills)

Road A has the benefit of being the shortest path to the new city, and only crosses one river.

Road B is one tile longer than A, but would road the wheat square, making it more valuable. Again, only one river crossing.

Road C would lay the groundwork for connecting our #2 city - and pick up the extra ivory.

Ok - looking forward to discussion!

you can attach it to your post, or upload via the button at the bottom of the page and put the url in [img] tags

I like location 2 idea ... gives us extra ivory and another coastal city for a naval HQ ... suggestion for future screenies would be to CNT+G to get the map grid lines ...

I really support the location #2 as marked, but I think location #1 should be 1sw from where General W marks it: along road B. This keeps city2 within 3 moves of capital. Also, locus2 allows us to manufacture curragh for maritime exploration - something that has fallen by the wayside....

Yeah - I'll make sure I get the gridlines in any future shots. (Thanks Fe3333au)

@peter grimes: Moving location 1 south-west would be ok - but because of the river - it'd still be 2 moves away. (until engineering). Keeping it where it's at gives the city instant access to that wheat - so we can make it a worker or settler factory. IMHO, in the early game “food = power” (esp. with pop. rushing), so having the wheat is very desirable.

But I do agree for location 2 – we shouldn’t lose sight of getting a curragh ASAP. Very important.

@ General W: good points on locus1. I never population rush in my home games, but against these barbarians I guess we might have to ;)

At risk of being repetitive, our cities will be too far apart. I would prefer to see 2 on top of the ivory. If we mine the BGs west and west-northwest of Athens, then either city will be able to use them depending on need. If we go to location 2, then we have the same number of BGs, but none are shared, and it takes twice as many worker turns to improve both cities. None of our cities will be larger than size 6 until we are out of despotism, and they will probably never be greater than size 12. By putting our cities so far apart we are planning for a stage of the game we will never reach because we will be starting out so much slower than everybody else.

An additional advantage to settling on the ivory is the fact that we will not have a citizen working the ivory tile for a long time (if ever). By settling on it instead of on an ordinary plain, we get the gold bonus for quicker research.

Of course, if we settle spot 1 and then settle on the ivory, we make spot 1 rank 2 (i.e. more corrupt). Again, I have to wonder, where does our military come from? I urge the team to reconsider moving location 1 S and making it a military factory. We can grab the wheat with a future corrupt city, and it will be in the radius of our military factory if desired. The more corrupt cities need food more, the less corrupt cities need shields because you don’t want to resort to pop-rushing in non-corrupt cities.

Pop is power normally, yes, but this is multiplayer. In single player, expansion is everything because you can generally prevent the AI from attacking, and you get expansion from pop. I admit I have no experience with multiplayer, but it seems to me that worrying about settler/worker factories and curraghs first and leaving military as an afterthought against human opponents on a small map is just suicide.

How about this for city placement?

Ok – Chamnix makes some really great points.

I've played more PBEM games than I have played singleplayer – but normally against 1 or 2 humans, and several comps – and mostly on "standard" or larger maps. I'm naturally a builder type player – and I prefer a loose spacing of my cities (esp. in my core) – to make them powerhouses in the late game… but since this is a small map, and with 4 highly experienced teams… it seems unlikely the game will go that far.

Let me refer everyone to some great info from GingerAle in the War Academy…

Loose Placement:
Pros:
* Can have good production levels with hospitals, but hospitals aren't necessary.
* Will use most of the tiles before hospitals.
* Won't need lots of culture to connect cities via territory.
Cons:
* It takes more than 1 turn to get from city to city with roads and a 1 move unit.
* Won't get in as many cities as tighter placement, so you lose out on benefits of having more cities in a tighter pattern like more unit support (in Republic in C3C, each new town saves 2 gpt, and also gets in at least 1 uncorrupted commerce).

Tight Placement:
Pros:
* 3 tile separation allows to go from one city to another via roads.
* No culture needed to connect cities.
* More cities = more units, for military-type victories.
* No hospitals needed.
Cons:
* Cities won't grow past size 12.
* Each city only gets around 9 tiles.
* Hard for the late game in terms of food, commerce, and production (wait, that's everything. :lol due to the cramped conditions. Most games using this style won't last that late, though.
You can read the whole thing here (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/city_placement.php):

Anyway – bottom line: As much as it pains me to say it – Tight placement may be better for this game. We're unlikely to have many cities pass the need for 9 tiles at any rate.
Rather than just argue about where each city should go – it could be helpful to have a "grand strategy" that helps guide the decisions. (knowing the small map settings leaves me inclined toward the "tight placement" strategy.)
I'll post a sceenshot with examples as soon as I get a chance.
Comments?

ok - here's the screenshot I promised with a "tight placement" strategy and some other city locations in keeping with that idea.

also (partially @ Chamnix)- it's my understanding that the RCP exploit dosn't work in C3C 1.5 and newer. Aren't we playing the most recent version of Conquests? If so, we don't really need to worry about equal spacing of cities. Maybe someone needs to check with RegentMan or GingerAle about this?

(Note: proposed road C is longer becuse of the river - it'll take 2 turns to get to the other possible city anyway - and I thought it'd be good to road over the wheat)

I agree completely with General W. 1 and 2 are exactly the locations I would prefer. The “?”s look good, but obviously when we will have more information, they may slide a tile or 2.

You are correct that RCP does not work in C3C - even if towns are equidistant from the capital, one will have more rank corruption than the other. My point in mentioning the increased corruption was that I believe our inland city should be a military factory, and it is more important to minimize corruption there than in a coastal city not on the river.

If we founded at 1 in General W’s map in post #23, then another town on the ivory, then our city at 1 will have rank 2 (or greater depending on where other cities go). By founding at 1 and 2 (in that order) on post #32, then 1 will have rank 1 and have less corruption.

speaking from my personal experiences, CxxxC is a good spacing. there is a lot of land on this map as well. we will (probably) have to wait a while before we find a friend. our first ring of cities should be CxxxC, then after that CxxC. IMO, its the best option. It's really hard for me to accept CxxC though. I will rarely if ever use it in any game.

It looks like we're getting some good discussion going here.

I totally sympathize with what azzaman333 is saying. Loose spacing makes for a much prettier/more satisfying empire for builders like me.

To advance the discussion, lets look at the map stats that we got from Rik Meleet, (posted in the looking glass thread) …

Originally Posted by Rik Meleet
* Rik is the Map Designer ... well done *
I've rechecked the map size settings:
80x80 tiles
Land: 1360 (2 continents)
Water: 1840
Total: 3200

(I'm not sure how the 80x80 tiles adds up, but assuming the rest is correct…)

Total Land = 1,360 (land tiles available)
Our share = 340 (1/4 of the land – because of 4 teams)

Max cities with loose placement = 23 (with 15 tiles for each city)
Max cities with tight placement = 38 (with 9 tiles for each city)

Obviously we could do some kind of blend (and most likely we will HAVE to – just due to terrain) – and that would put the number somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I have just a few other comments beyond what I copied from GingerAle (previous post)

3 Positive Points to Tight Spacing:

1) A difference of 10+ cities could be huge in a game that may not get far past the Medieval era.

2) We also shouldn't overlook the fact that tight spacing allows us to shuffle defensive units in a single turn – allowing us to empty a city and rush defenses to the border, and still move units into the emptied interior city… all in the same turn.
My experience in multiplayer games is that humans tend to pick one or two spots, and hit there with what they hope is overwhelming force. Consequently, the ability to shuffle defense around becomes esp. powerful. Humans also seem to like to try to hit an enemie's Core cities ASAP in a war = crippling blow. Thus making tight spacing even more advantageous in this situation.

3) Shuffling defense allows for the possibility (not that I'm advocating this necessarily) that we could have a smaller standing army and take advantage of a republic for government.

3 Negative Points to Tight Spacing:

1) Since there are only 2 continents, we must be sharing OUR land with some infidels. Tight spacing will restrict our land grab – and we may end up with more cities but less land = less chance at some resources. (of course, some may argue, this is what War is for! :ar15: )

2) If the game goes longer than expected, we'll have severely handicapped Core cities.

3) It may be possible to defend our Core cities without tight spacing – by using lots of galleys to guard our coast. Outer cities could use tight spacing for defense – while the Core has more room to grow, secured by Naval blockade. (this would be more for the military ministry to decide – but it is highly relevant to how we space our cities)

Bottom line: I still lean toward tight spacing for the whole empire, but I'm very open to a blended strategy like azzaman333 suggested - and as azzaman333 is our glorious domestic leader - I will of course support what ever decision is made. Team MIA to the death!

Looking forward to what everyone else has to say!

Great analysis ... especially the tiles

I think land grab is more important ... grab and control the resources we find ... and with 1 or 2 settler factories we can soon fill in the spaces between the cities ...

But although the wrong ministerial thread, but related to this ... is the fact we need to explore ... by sea as well as land ... and have a secondary wave of shipping closely following but this one carrying warrior ... they are there for the Land Hugging Sail and Sightseeing Strategy : anchor ship -> land on coast -> look around -> pop any huts -> reload -> sail onward ...

3) It may be possible to defend our Core cities without tight spacing – by using lots of galleys to guard our coast. Outer cities could use tight spacing for defense – while the Core has more room to grow, secured by Naval blockade. (this would be more for the military ministry to decide – but it is highly relevant to how we space our cities)


Loose city spacing = fewer cities = less unit support. I'm sceptical about our ability to maintain enough galleys for an effective blockade as well as sufficient land troops especially since loose spacing will not enable us to shuffle defensive units from town to town quickly. It looks like the team prefers Republic so I really don't think we will want that many galleys not doing anything except sitting passively.

im for a blended city spacing but more along lines the tight city spacing for defensive purposes and i am more of a military person so after our 2nd city
(which i hope will be on #2 or some where along that river) the 3rd could be spaced apart? either towards the elephants or tobacco (tobacco would be better since they are 3 of them right?)

I would like to see tight spacing

I would like to point out that at the begining of the game re should really focus our expansion north (towards the center) and then worry about filling the south parts better. With this in mind (and considering we already have ivory) perhaps a different (more northerly) location for our second city would be best. It would also have been wise to change the direction of that warrior but it may be too late now.

Of course you also have corruption to factor in during city placement, and we dont know what is north yet, so perhaps location 2 would be best.

@meleager: I agree that our primary direction of exploration and land acquisition should be north and north-west. At the same time, I still want a curragh. I'd like to see city2 as a military factory in the locations already discussed, and city3 on the coast on the ivory. After that, we will know much more about the north and north west, and can evaluate accordingly.

We’ve got lots of great ideas here – but we need to start working towards an agreement, so that Minister azzaman333 can give instruction to our glorious president.

I’ve reviewed this whole thread again, and would like to take the liberty of summarizing the three main positions I see here. (I’ve also guessed at the supporters based on comments – feel free to disavow where I’ve listed you!)

Here they are:

1) Tight Spacing
Cities are spaced within 3 moves of eachother. Designed for maximum population, land use, military support, and defensive ease.
Current Supporters: Chamnix, Ybbor, and Peter grimes?


2) Loose / Mixed spacing
Cities are spaced further apart in the core to allow more development. Tight spacing used in the border cities. Allows for better/higher yield cities in the core later in the game. Grabs more territory.
Current supporters: Azzaman333

3) Land Grab spacing
Cities are placed on the extreme borders to claim as much land as possible ASAP. Cities are then backfilled into the empty territory.
Current supporters: Fe3333au?, Meleager?

More discussion is always good – especially if anyone want to clarify where they stand on this issue.
However – I think we should avoid debating this to death – we’ll have to plant our first settler soon, and azzaman333 needs to give instructions to our president.

Azzaman333, Maybe you should launch a poll? Or do it the “benevolent dictator” way – and just tell us how it’s going to be! :king:

Personally – I’m still in the “Tight Spacing” camp.

Here’s a screenshot illustrating the different positions. This of course could be modified once we settle on a basic strategy.

MIA forever!

At the very least Azza should stipulate where our second city is spaced ... after that, the policy may be open to the evolutionary process

Here's some good info for everyone in the domestic ministry to chew on.

It's pretty self explanatory - so here it is!
(This info is from turn 20 - yet to be played by our current president)

wow what a powerfull programme ... does it also do the prediction thing where you can project production orders into cities?