View Full Version : where do new cities go?


zyxy
Sep 15, 2005, 02:51 AM
From this point on we can expect to get a settler every 4 turns. So we will need to decide on city sites. Here is a pic of our lands in 2440BC:

Nobody
Sep 15, 2005, 03:16 AM
I say between the wine and fish looks nice

Robi D
Sep 15, 2005, 04:48 AM
This is my idea, they are numbered in sequence of placement, 1 and 2 should be there to maximize the resources along the coast, the 3 and for to begin our expansion inland. 3 is placed to maximise shield production and can be our military or wonder city (i would leave the forests there, 7 bonus grassland and hill) and 4 is just to open up more land, but the placement isn't exact and can be moved around

zyxy
Sep 15, 2005, 06:00 PM
I like Robi D's sites. I think nr 4 is the best, it is close to the capital and has three bg's, a good barracks town. After that, I would settle 5 (see figure below) and 3, they will also be productive military towns. Nr 1 is a decent shipyard, and it grabs another wine for trade, but it has no bonus food or production, so I think it can wait. Nr 2 (with culture expansion) and in particular nr 6 are real powerhouses, but they are far from the capital and should probably also wait. Nr 6 is a good FP site perhaps. There should of course some good sites along the rivers, but we can't really see that far yet.

(white dots in the figure indicate bonus grass.)

admiral-bell
Sep 15, 2005, 08:15 PM
2 cities in the northern mountains and hills to provide defence for our core cities

Civman2004
Sep 15, 2005, 09:57 PM
I'd say there's a fairly strong chance of there being Coal hidden in those swamps to the north. Possibly oil too.

Tomoyo
Sep 17, 2005, 08:43 AM
I like zyxy's map, but with 2 moved NE one space and bumped to fourth on the priority list.

DaveShack
Sep 28, 2005, 01:35 PM
Let's update this to account for current conditions please. :)

I can't post any screenies until tonight at the earliest, but anyone is welcome to throw their 2 gold into the pile at any point. :D

zyxy
Sep 29, 2005, 03:30 AM
I like Tomoyo's idea of moving nr 2 one tile NE, to put it at distance 3 of number 1. I would settle in the order 4-5-1-3-6-2, this should give us the most productive area first.

Robi D
Sep 29, 2005, 06:22 AM
My order would be 4-1-resettle cruller-3-5-2. I would move 5 one sq. east.

vikingruler
Oct 01, 2005, 06:14 PM
My suggestion: 6-1-3-4-2-5, this strategy gives us an early mountain city, ideal for defense aganist TNT, then we get a coastal city, followed by a strong eastern wall of cities, followed by another coastal city, and then ending with an inner eastern wall city. Also, my opinion, is to make sure all cities have at least one unit garrisoned, be it a spear, warrior, sword, tank, whatever, CRULLER- NEVER AGAIN.

DaveShack
Oct 09, 2005, 04:21 AM
Looking once again at the current tactial situation, here is a new map with the close-in locations.

Robi D
Oct 09, 2005, 08:00 AM
Im happy with either 1 or 5 on daveshacks map for this settler

zyxy
Oct 09, 2005, 08:44 AM
Likewise. SLightly happier with 5, it has better production and is easier on the road network.

DaveShack
Oct 09, 2005, 11:25 AM
I'm inclined to go with 5 due to the Persian warrior. We shouldn't let them dictate where we settle, but I shudder at the thought of a couple of bad RNG rolls costing us our one real shot to equalize and start using our expansion ability to its fullest. The barb isn't really a threat, comparatively speaking.

DaveShack
Oct 16, 2005, 11:48 PM
The next settler is due next turn, I'm inclined to say we should use spot 2 from the map above. What do you all think?

Robi D
Oct 17, 2005, 02:41 AM
Personally i think location 4 should be settled next, as it keeps everything central making it easier to defend

zyxy
Oct 17, 2005, 05:35 AM
Agree with 4. After that 3, then 2. Nr 2 should probably be moved 1 E or 1 SE. This gives good defense and highly productive towns first.