Is it ever a good idea to build directly on resource tiles?

Here's the situation...I conquered Louis XIV's capital (yeaah, TRIBUTE *THIS* MOTHER****ER!!...we have a history, lol...) and razed it so I could build a new city that (1) was still on the coast, but (2) wasn't so close to Egypt's borders, which was already putting enormous cultural pressure on Louis' city.

Attached below is a screenshot of where I originally built the new city (where the settler is standing -- Louis' old city ruins are underneath the war elephants in the lower right.) The macemen are standing on an iron resource, which IMO would be the perfect location...however, while I know you still gain access to a resource you built a city on, you can't build any improvements on it. Unfortunately, I realized that where the settler is standing, there are no hammer tiles AT ALL within the city radius, except for the iron.

If I go back and build directly on the iron, it gives me potential access to three extra hill tiles...assuming Egypt's culture doesn't take them over, which it might. (There's a couple really big Egyptian cities to the east.) The downside is, I can't improve the iron at all, and I won't get access to the clams until the city expands, which may take a long time.

So...what would be the best building location, in this situation?

That's always a toughie. I think it depends on what you plan on doing with Egypt. I would personally build where you are, and just make it a great people farm or a commerce city. If you plan on razing some Egyptian cities, build on top of the iron, for more of an 'all round city'.

You lose 2 of the four hammers the iron is producing by founding on it. In moving you're swapping 4 ordinary coast tiles for a plains/hill, two desert/hills and a grassland forest. The overlap with Rheims is the same in both cases.

You can build a decent commerce city where the settler curently is, but the potential hammer production of the three hill tiles probably outweighs the 2 hammer (or 3 with railroad) loss from founding directly on the iron.

Assuming you just captured Rhiems and the pigs are in the range of that city you want to settle the desert tile where the elephants are currently or the desert north.
The one to the east gives you freshwater, coastal, a plains hill, 3 grasslands, one with a forest and the one with iron. I might settle on a desert iron but never a grass iron. Thats just too good of a space and its already improved.

The angle sucks and you are showing way too little info. Rhiems could have good tiles to the north that we can't see making the pigs an acceptable overlap. Anyway it looks like floodplains so the north desert tile looks to be the best.

Found the city where you are, and build workshops on the plains tiles (where the farms are now, maybe even where the cottage is). With the pigs and clam you have more than enough food to support the workshops, and the sea and oasis can provide commerce.

That's always a toughie. I think it depends on what you plan on doing with Egypt. I would personally build where you are, and just make it a great people farm or a commerce city. If you plan on razing some Egyptian cities, build on top of the iron, for more of an 'all round city'.
Well, Egypt's the closest to an ally that I have in this game. (The diplomatic situation's a total mess, every civ is hated by at least one other civ, so every time I trade with someone, it pisses off someone else!) I'm gunning for a Conquest Victory, but Egypt is not high on the priority list yet.

Does one square really make that much difference in border tensions?

Also, how do you make a Great People Farm? I've tried cultivating GPs but it always gets screwed up by the City Governor automatically turning citizens into Priests, so all I get from my Artist and Merchant cities is a bunch of useless Great Prophets!!! :wallbash:

Build where you are.

Pros:
-You get two special resources right away (production and food). If you build on the iron you would only get one.

-You get more ocean/coast squares.

-Better diplomacy with the egyptians.

Cons (and why they don't matter so much):
-You miss out on 2 hills...but they are desert hills.

-You don't get the 2 production right away from settling on the iron...but without the food from the ocean it will take longer to get to a size of 2.

-The iron is pillageable...but since it's later in the game (and because the iron is already mined), it doesn't matter so much.

Cons:
-You trade a plains/hill for a moutain and a grassland/forest for a coast.




These are the following reasons you would want to settle on an iron:
-One production now is better than three production later. (This is clearly not the case for you since it is already mined...and because it's not early in the game).

-Unpillageable iron can be good if you might have problems defending it. (This is not the case for you since the egyptians are right next to the city to help defend it).

-No need to mine it. In marthon games, the difference of 10 (or so) turns that it takes to mine it can be huge early on. (This is clearly not the case for you because it is already mined).

-Other terrain, dipomacy, strategic locations, and distance from capital. (This is a toss up for you...ocean&shore&diplomacy vs hills&grassland).

I agree with the "build where you are" posters.

The cultural pressure from Egypt indicates their cities are too close. The only way I'd move to build on the iron (or the desert or plains tiles next to it) is if you plan on going to war with Egypt soon and razing those cities. It sounds like you're not, or you wouldn't be concerned about this at all.

You probably don't have Pyramids, so Univ Suffrage isn't an option. However, keep in mind you have those Fish there, and you can use the Pigs too. Use Slavery to build a lot of cultral buildings, and soon. Keep your city at size two, working both the fish and the pigs. Whenever it gets to size 3 or 4, use Slavery to complete the building.

Wodan

Yes, build where you are and make it a commerce city. You can always build a workshop or two to supplement the iron's hammers for building important improvements if it turns out to be necessary.

Yeah, this is a bit of a tough call, but I'd build on the iron in this particular case. By putting your city on the iron you'll give yourself access to 3 hill squares within your "fat X" and I would say that, on balance, you'd be better off with access to 3 hills than one iron.

Personaly, I would only build on top of a resource in a situation like this one, if I absolutely needed it right away (to rush, or defend myself from one), or if it was something vital that I thought I couldn't defend otherwise (iron along another civ's boarder).

If that's your only source of Iron I'd build the city on top of it for protection. You'll still have access to the sea's resources once your cultural borders expand and the hills will make up for the loss of hammers on the iron.

If protection of the iron isn't a top priority, I'd say to settle where you are now.

I have like 5 sources of iron so that isn't a big concern. I don't have the Pyramids, never even tried since I didn't have stone (and STILL don't...can't even trade for it!!) and most of my early rounds went into military production to take over Genghis & Louis.

As I figured, Egypt's borders expanded very quickly (see pic below) so all of you who suggested I keep the city where I built it, you were right. :goodjob: Rheims, as you can see, is getting squeezed pretty hard, not only from Egypt but from Asoka to the north. (Most of those tiles across the river were mine just a few turns ago...I swear he culture bombed a city up there!) Looks like Asoka's next on the conquest list...

I agree with smirk on settling on the northern desert. you get 2 food resources in the immediate radius to help you grow. I also agree that grassland iron is too good. The only con is the huge overlap with Rheims, but if you think about it, you lose three tiles due to overlapping by moving up, but you gained a workable tile by settling on an otherwise unworkable desert, so you are only losing two; moreover, depending on the situation south of where your settler is, you may have overlaps down south anyway so moving north may not really cost you anything. Plus, settling on the northern desert means that you will gain access to the (unoverlapped) hill tile directly north of the oasis which I value more than an ocean square.

JerVL/kg, you must not be in Slavery? Otherwise, you should have spent 1 guy as soon as you got to size 3 and it only cost 1. IMO anyway. :)

Sandy

Settle on the desert to the north.
With the clams, pigs, and oasis, you have an istant specialist city.

Obviously some people don't read the whole thread before posting... :rolleyes:

JerVL/kg, you must not be in Slavery? Otherwise, you should have spent 1 guy as soon as you got to size 3 and it only cost 1. IMO anyway. :)
Are talking about Vilcabamba (the new city) or Rheims? Rheims already had pop 8 when I took it over, and was starving even after I whipped 3 for a theatre (I think...might have forgotten to do it.) I'm still not that familiar with how to use the slavery system...

Are talking about Vilcabamba (the new city) or Rheims? Rheims already had pop 8 when I took it over, and was starving even after I whipped 3 for a theatre (I think...might have forgotten to do it.) I'm still not that familiar with how to use the slavery system...

Vilcamba. You need to pop out culture buildings as fast as possible. If it was me, I'd do the following: make sure the first 2 citizens are working the pigs and fish, start it working on Granary then Library/Monsatery/etc., and as soon as each building gets done "enough" that pop-rushing will drop my pop down to 2 exactly, I'd pop it.

Looking at your new screenshot (thanks for posting that), Vilcamba's at size 3 and about to be size 4. The Theatre is only 2 turns from being done, though. See, probably 5-6 turns ago you could have popped the Theatre out, dropping Vilcamba from size 3 to 2.

Now, this is halfway arguable, since having a 3rd citizen work that tasty mine is darn good too. So, maybe in this case you're doing right and should pop rush but down to 3 citizens, so you're always working your top 3 tiles.

I don't know... it would take a lot of math to determine whether 2 or 3 was the better choice (you'd have to compute the difference between cost savings for how much food it costs to go up in size from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, minus granary savings, and how much working the Iron gives you over those turns.

Wodan

So slavery uses less population, the smaller your city is? I didn't know that.

I was actually building a lighthouse first, to help work the coast tiles, but switched to theater once I realized the switch to Organized Religion (from no religion at all) stopped the culture dead in its tracks!

Are granneries useful? I've been neglecting them in this game, but most of my cities seem to be growing just fine. (Except the ones with six mine tiles but the City Governor insists on working the farms instead...grr.)

So slavery uses less population, the smaller your city is? I didn't know that.

I was actually building a lighthouse first, to help work the coast tiles, but switched to theater once I realized the switch to Organized Religion (from no religion at all) stopped the culture dead in its tracks!

Are granneries useful? I've been neglecting them in this game, but most of my cities seem to be growing just fine. (Except the ones with six mine tiles but the City Governor insists on working the farms instead...grr.)

Re: Slavery
Not literally but effectively yes. It takes less food to grow a city from size 2 to size 3, than from size 3 to size 4. So, if you are "spending" a citizen, it is cheaper (in food) to spend a "size 3" citizen than a "size 4" citizen. Make sense?

Re: Lighthouse & Granary
Personally I would build Granary first. Going back to the "less food" argument, Granary makes it half of what it was.

Basically, Granary and Slavery is going to make it cost Food to build your culture buildings. Both of these will let you build your culture builds as fast as possible. And, having Pigs and Fish will make it pretty darn fast. :)

(The only other thing you could do is use Universal Suffrage to pay $$ to buy them outright.)

Wodan

Ok, I need some help again. It looks like I might have to go to war with Egypt much sooner than planned.

I took over India, which went swimmingly despite having to face Asoka's grenadiers vs. my knights & pikemen (apparently destroying his ivory/horse/iron resources doesn't have much of an effect when your enemy has gunpowder already!) but while waiting for Delhi to come out of rebellion, Egypt snuck in and planted a new city RIGHT NEXT TO DELHI!

I actually went back a couple turns and quickly settled Huamanga in that spot before Egypt could grab it...but now, I'm wondering if I should go back in time again and let Egypt build, and just try to culture them out. (Delhi already has the Mahabodhi and the Spiral Minaret; if I can get the Hermitage & a Forbidden Palace in there, I just might be able to shove back Egypt's border by a few squares...good Lord, I would KILL for a Great Artist right now!!) Also, Egypt merely sent their Settler north and looks assured to make another land grab...

Picture #1 below shows a closeup of the Delhi vs. Egypt situation, before I went back in time. The big problem with building my own city there is massive overlap with Delhi, in particular the wheat tile.

(More detailed picture on next page...apparently you can't display more than one image per post?)

Picture #2 shows a map of the newly conquered territory -- the red square is where Egypt moved their settler, and will probably build there next turn. (Obviously they want the horses, since they have none at the moment.) The white square is where I'm going to build New Bangaladore, which is on a hills/coast tile between wheat & cows; I'll concede an iron tile to Tokugawa, but I can live with that. The black squares indicate Indian cities that I razed.

Your most recent posts aren't really relevant to the thread, why don't you ask this in a new post in a relevant forum.

Anyway, to your original question, I see you ignored my advice to move north. But I think you should re-evaluate why you did it as it was a bad choice to settle on that grass. Not only did you lose the grass tile and not upgrade the desert by settling on it, but the only thing you gained by that position is 3 water tiles, one of which (although not shown) is defintely an ocean tile so 1f1g and not at all useful. North would also give you a plains hill.

The jury is still out on the east desert move since none of the images show enough to decide. Although looking at your game now you don't seem to know how to deal with close borders, as you are size three and still not any expansion.

Well, false alarm about Egypt stealing my horses. Instead they settled on the north coast, surrounded by barren tundra and peaks. The gods finally smiled on me and provided a Great Artist, who culture-bombed Bombay so now all they have is a tiny strip of ocean and one mountain peak. :lol: On the very next turn, Alexander begged for help in his war on Egypt, so...it's on like Donkey Kong!

I see you ignored my advice to move north. But I think you should re-evaluate why you did it as it was a bad choice to settle on that grass. Not only did you lose the grass tile and not upgrade the desert by settling on it, but the only thing you gained by that position is 3 water tiles, one of which (although not shown) is defintely an ocean tile so 1f1g and not at all useful. North would also give you a plains hill.
I ignored your advice because it was stupid. Obviously you didn't notice that moving north would have overlapped three tiles with Rheims (which it already had more overlap with) not to mention losing coastal access and a good number of coast tiles. The plains hill is moot, Egypt's culture border is too strong and I can't rely on getting it. (Of course this premature war changes everything...)

The jury is still out on the east desert move since none of the images show enough to decide. Although looking at your game now you don't seem to know how to deal with close borders, as you are size three and still not any expansion.
The images were taken when the city was brand new, it has since expanded to size 2 and will soon reach size 3. While Egypt's border hasn't budged, the city nevertheless has a thriving commerce & industry base. I'm quite happy with the placement, actually.

Maybe you should evaluate why everyone EXCEPT you recommended its current location. Perhaps you're not such a guru at this game like you pretend to be.

I think if you go back and read the thread you'll find your last comment to be incorrect. Additionally, many of the reasons stated to remain are simply wrong.

And to begin with you were debating whether to settle on iron, when all you gain would be a bunch of desert tiles! HAH. Guru eh?


If you just wanted confirmation for what you wanted to do anyway don't post in Strategy try Discussion.


Anyway overlap is meaningless in this discussion because what you gain by avoiding overlap has little or no value. Also, and this is the main reason, the bulk of your city's life is going to be spent BELOW size 21 (significantly below actually). So, if you are always thinking about that 1% of the time when your city will see 16 or more pop than you are missing out on a considerable strategic element of the game.

I think if you go back and read the thread you'll find your last comment to be incorrect.
Ok, let's count the votes:
(A) Leave it where it is = Morred (also recommended iron), Aldor, LordTerror, Wodan, Beamup, Zer0xChan (also recommended iron)
(B) Build on iron = Morred (with conditions), Zer0xChan (with conditions), DangerousMonkey
(C) Build on some godforsaken desert spot that misses the coast, might someday gain extra hills (if Egypt didn't own them already) and creates a border conflict with my own city = Smirk, tempuraki, lawren65.

Hey, you got 2 votes. I missed those, sorry about that. :p Still, 6 to 3 is an overwhelming consensus for the coast...heck, you can pass a constitutional amendment with that margin.

Additionally, many of the reasons stated to remain are simply wrong.

And to begin with you were debating whether to settle on iron, when all you gain would be a bunch of desert tiles! HAH. Guru eh?
That's why I asked first. And just so you know, I got the game for Xmas and this is my third game ever, 1st on Noble. I never played the previous games so it's a LOT of info to learn and I still don't have everything down yet...but my first 2 games were runaway victories (even won a Cultural Victory in game #2, which is supposed to be the hardest victory to get) and in this game I'm also leading in land area, techs, and # of rival civs destroyed, so I think I'm doing quite well IMO.

Also, and this is the main reason, the bulk of your city's life is going to be spent BELOW size 21 (significantly below actually). So, if you are always thinking about that 1% of the time when your city will see 16 or more pop than you are missing out on a considerable strategic element of the game.
So, you're saying I should focus on immediate goals and ignore how it affects future growth? You must be a Republican.

Anyway, since you've been asking for a more detailed screenshot of the area, I'll post one in the next post (so it doesn't mess up the text in this one.)

Here's the "Big Picture". It's a combo of 2 different screenshots, so the Egypt/Greece border's a little screwed up, but it gives you the right idea.

If I can take out Alexandria & Pi-Ramses, that'll eliminate the culture intrusion onto my cities.

Alexander's currently attacking Pi-Ramses (and not having much luck, the n00b) and he'll certainly expand into that area, but hey, whatever. He'll be next on the chopping block once both Egypt and Mali are gone. :lol: :ar15:

(As for this thread straying off-topic...how about changing the title of this one? Can you do that?)

BTW I'm also thinking of letting Egypt overtake (and hopefully raze) Huamanga since I don't like it's location and I only put it there to prevent Egypt from building there in the first place. Whaddaya think, good plan? Or is that also the dumbest idea you've ever heard?

Anyway overlap is meaningless in this discussion because what you gain by avoiding overlap has little or no value. Also, and this is the main reason, the bulk of your city's life is going to be spent BELOW size 21 (significantly below actually). So, if you are always thinking about that 1% of the time when your city will see 16 or more pop than you are missing out on a considerable strategic element of the game.


^ ^ ^
This is good info. I have been doing that with every city I make...... I must re-evaluate this tendancy.

^ ^ ^
This is good info. I have been doing that with every city I make...... I must re-evaluate this tendancy.

I agree. I always tought it was better not to overlap. In the previous civ-games, cities you didn't build settlers in, grew faster. But in civ4, you only get size 20+ cities at the end of the renaissance, sometimes way in modern times (I do, I guess that's the average).

Couple of comments.

Building on desert is good advice. I advised against it in that one example, because in that case I think it was a less optimal position.

Smirk you suggested the desert where the elephants are currently or the desert north of the settler. The former will immediately be under culture pressure, gives up the fish AND the pigs. The latter has not 3 but FIVE overlap with Rheims; that said, it's a better spot than the other and worthy of consideration.

As for overlap, yes, cities spend 3/4 of the game where overlap is not so big a concern. However, that 1/4 of the game is just as important.

Overlap of 3 isn't that big of a deal. 5 is pushing it, especially when already limited by deserts and mountains (look at the deserts north of Rheims).

Wodan

Wodan, I'm still confused why building on the desert square would have been a good idea, even if Rheims wasn't there? It's my understanding that desert tiles are the worst place to build a city (except for ice/tundra) and should be avoided unless there's no other option? I can see how building on desert would add a single hill and some plains/grasslands, but lose about three coastal tiles. (I've also noticed that my coastal cities tend not to use the hill tiles anyway!) And I get the pigs, clams & oasis in either case.

Anyways, since this thread is straying off topic and I can't figure out how to change the title, I've taken Smirk's advice and started a new thread here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154264) to ask more general advice about my Egyptian conquest. :)

Ok, let's count the votes:
(C) Build on some godforsaken desert spot that misses the coast, might someday gain extra hills (if Egypt didn't own them already) and creates a border conflict with my own city = Smirk, tempuraki, lawren65.


First, it doesn't "miss the coast", if by that you mean access to coast and its improvements. More clearly, that desert tile is a coastal tile. As is the other desert tile I suggested, the latter now looks a bit weak (all the desert to the east, although if any water resources exist then it might be good), but does have freshwater which is why the AI built there. Looking at the latest screen shows me you would have lost that city anyway. Build culture. Or build more effective miltary to destroy your enemies culture.

Also maybe post a save from before you settled that spot if you have it still.

Wodan, I'm still confused why building on the desert square would have been a good idea, even if Rheims wasn't there? It's my understanding that desert tiles are the worst place to build a city (except for ice/tundra) and should be avoided unless there's no other option?


All center squares get 2 food, 1 hammer and 1 commerce by default no matter what sort of tile it is. So you basically upgrade a desert to a useful tile by settling on it. And in this case freeing up that grass that you did settle on for better use since it can produce more than 2/1/1 with improvements.

There are modifiers that change the base values, such as plain hills which give a bonus hammer.

I agree with Smirk, dont build on (i.e. waste) the grasslands.
I actually think the best spot might have been the plains to the south east, the 1 tile peninsula. But that depends on how the culture borders would have worked out.

All center squares get 2 food, 1 hammer and 1 commerce by default no matter what sort of tile it is. So you basically upgrade a desert to a useful tile by settling on it. And in this case freeing up that grass that you did settle on for better use since it can produce more than 2/1/1 with improvements.
Really? I didn't know that. So building on any tile (other than hills) doesn't give you ANY bonuses, whether it's grassland or tundra?

And building on the peninsula was also an option...but there was already a town there. Plus, the border thing.

Also maybe post a save from before you settled that spot if you have it still.
OK, attached. The save is one attack away from capturing Tours, so you'll have the option of keeping it or razing & rebuilding with my settler (who's somewhere in one of those elephant stacks back there...)

I'm really very interested to see what you do with it. Keep in mind Tours is getting cultural pressure not only from Alexandria in the east, but also Thebes (the Egyptian capital) which is about 3 or 4 tiles SE down the coast. (Check my other thread for more detailed screenshots.)

Ok, I looked at the game and have some suggestions. I didn't play long as thats a huge game and its hard to step into someone elses without a large time investment.

First, I believe this post to be largely irrelevant now as I would not have razed Tours. Its not a great spot but the local area isn't that great to begin with. So the only value of razing Tours is the garner another clam and a few extra coasts (and a couple seas/oceans). I don't think razing and settling is really necessary. If you are going to raze some cities, let it be the ones you placed in the tundras up north, those are far less likely to garner much in the way of overall value. Thats an arcane point as its pretty difficult to get rid of poor cities you wanted early in the game but now are mostly a drain.

Another thing I noticed which may not be your doing but an earlier city located on a desert tile by a river north of here was razed and then another was placed right beside it also along the river. Both of these spots were floodplains, but after having put a city on the tile loses that trait. So if you razed that earlier city and placed the new you lost two floodplains. I'd think long and hard about razing a desert city by a river.
This may be a bug since floodplains should reappear once the city is gone, but as it is now they are gone forever once settled upon.

And lastly you have too many medics. You really want to examine the concept of specialization with your promotions. For one medic isn't additive so in any stack of units only one medic promotion is effective. What I, and many other players, do is promote an early unit to medic and keep that unit unupgraded thru the ages as a medic. Sometimes this doesn't work or you need more medics for a larger force and then you can upgrade some modern units to medics, but either way you do not want all your units to have it. A specialized mace with city raider I&II with a mace medic is far more effective than two maces both with combat I&II and medic. This is even more true in this game playing with an agressive leader as you can get a cheap medic from pretty much any city with most any unit. In fact this is a very enjoyable aspect to the game made moreso with the bonus combat I promotion which opens up all sort of other possibilities. You can have brand new maces built only with a barracks start with +75 vs melee which makes them very effective. Its even more important than might be obvious because only the highest bonus is applied in a battle, so facing any other melee unit with + to melee lower than 75 will cancel out a portion of your bonus but not apply the enemies at all which is good if the enemy is more powerful. This is why archers are so strong defending cities because they typically cancel out all your attacking unit's promotions. Its a bit more complex than that, but my point was only that you overuse the medic promotion.

If you are going to raze some cities, let it be the ones you placed in the tundras up north, those are far less likely to garner much in the way of overall value. Thats an arcane point as its pretty difficult to get rid of poor cities you wanted early in the game but now are mostly a drain.
Most of those were Genghis Khan's cities and you are right, a couple of them are really struggling. They do pay for themselves and access resources I wouldn't otherwise be able to get, but it is certainly frustrating when a city stagnates at size 8 and all those carefully built lumberills & mines go unused. :cry:

Another thing I noticed which may not be your doing but an earlier city located on a desert tile by a river north of here was razed and then another was placed right beside it also along the river. Both of these spots were floodplains, but after having put a city on the tile loses that trait. So if you razed that earlier city and placed the new you lost two floodplains. I'd think long and hard about razing a desert city by a river.
I'm trying to remember what my reasoning was in that situation...might have been the border conflict with India and I changed my mind afterwards. I didn't know about the floodplain issue but it does kinda make sense, since floodplains IRL are rather fragile ecosystems. In any case, it's a quirk of my gameplay that I never improve a tile where a city's been razed, I like to keep 'em around for nostalgic purposes. :lol:

And lastly you have too many medics. You really want to examine the concept of specialization with your promotions. For one medic isn't additive so in any stack of units only one medic promotion is effective.
It's true, I'm a bit overaddicted to Medic II Elephants. :smoke: Didn't know about the additive thing, is that really true? I could've sworn my healing times went up by promoting extra units to Medic after battle...but I could be wrong.

Thanks for your insights, they were indeed helpful. Now, regarding Tours...you say you would have kept it, but is that conditional with eventually declaring war on Egypt to remove the cultural threat? Or would you have kept it even in a peaceful scenario?

Another thing I didn't mention is you should explore more, especially once you get open borders as knowing what egypt has to the southeast would be handy at that point in the game.
But yes I would keep it regardless whether you intend to war soon or not. For one Egypt's borders are really, really far from the actual city thus they are easily pushed back. And with 5 pop you can build some culture buildings faster, slave rush, or with caste civic simply force some artists.

Another thing I didn't mention is you should explore more, especially once you get open borders as knowing what egypt has to the southeast would be handy at that point in the game.
You are right of course. I had my scout parked there because Louis had closed borders with Egypt and they could spy on Tours with impunity...but when my forces arrived, you see, they got caught up in watching the battle... :mischief: