Obviously this thread is for planning our city locations. Let those dotmaps fly.
Also, naming a thread after the song voted Worst Song Ever (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-04-18-worst-songs_x.htm) seemed like a good idea.

Off-Topic: I actually like that song! :(

I'm with Daghie. A bunch of dopers in the eighties from San Francisco claim they built a city founded over a century before. :rolleyes:

A screenshot: http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=146099&d=1169059824 (alas, no prettier way to do it without more work)
A city EE of Graceland would get 2 FPs, 2 BGs, and a sugar on plains. With an irrigated plain (faster than mining a grassland, although since it seems logical to walk past a grassland to get to the BG, we might as well mine that grass anyways) and mined plain for growth, after 12% corruption, that's a 4-turn settler factory.

I as well vote for 2 east (change warrior build to a settler). The only other consideration is 3 SE to get a curragh out. I think food outweighs the curragh.

will E,E,se get us on the coast? that gives a 6 turn combi SF (I think but with 2 BG's it should be!) and Curraghs. Warriors next moves should be "e" then "n" (diagonal movement usually better)

I 'm not sure about the change to an early settler, it still only gives us 3 extra food until the workers catch up with it.

The better option is worker (Lumberjack in high heels) settler (Helped by a chop from worker 2) granary - city 2 does warrior curragh (or warrior warrior granary). Worker 1 roads and then irrigates the floodplain (e not NE of the capital as that saves a turn of settler movement) after the cow. Runs the military light, but not (I hope) too light. At this point (Turn 17) we have 9 surplus food and 4 spt.

This only delays the settler by 1 turn from going direct, and we end up with an extra worker built.

How about E,E,N? :)

The advantage of E E se is that even without a border expansion it is enough for a 6 turn combi factory (working 2 mBG's 2 iPlains, 2mGrass, allowing 1 shield for corruption - we need 7spt +1 spt on growth) and we can get a 6 turn factory up almost straight away (only 2mBG's + 1 iplain needed). If the grassland in the fog E E E S is a BG as well it makes life even easier.

as for EEN I would do that as well but after E E Se - that would be 4FPT as well as it uses 1 FP, and could act as a worker farm to pump out workers to sort out our core and then clear the jungle.

We also need a high SPT city - that looks like it might be to the west.

So I propose Blue is a combi SF and built first

Pink as a worker factory built second

Green (or somewhere round there) as a high shield city. The noughts are the city centres, the crosses are the tiles that the city needs to be effective. Oh and by the way this is my first dot map not done on pencil and paper!

Ah yes, a border expansion would be needed for EE. I'll agree with RFH's plan.

It looks like pink could grow 5 times in 2 turns.

After pink and blue are built, blue would have 18% corruption, causing 2 corrupted shields at 9 shields.

Ah yes, a border expansion would be needed for EE. I'll agree with RFH's plan.

It looks like pink could grow 5 times in 2 turns.

After pink and blue are built, blue would have 18% corruption, causing 2 corrupted shields at 9 shields.

which is a shame as we need a net 8 shields for a combi factory which would mean we need 10 for a net 8 and I can't see 10 for blue without a border expansion, perhaps plan for blue and adjust if we can see any more.

With another BG discovered, blue can get up to 10(uncorrupted)spt. With a mined plain, it could even be a curragh-settler combo (although planning that seems dubious with no alphabet).

I still vote EE. Guaranteed 4 turn settler factory. S-S-SE looks to me like it has some flood plains in the fog, and we can get the curragh out from a site down there.

The thing about combo factories, while fancy, they are only really useful if we go to monarchy (cheap MPs). Otherwise we have to build a barracks (further delaying growth) and if we end up in Republic we will have to disband all those regular warriors unless we 1) have excess funds to upgrade them and 2) are near a war to actually use them.

The site SW of Graceland I think should be on a prebuild for SoZ asap.

I still vote EE. Guaranteed 4 turn settler factory.
But only with a temple or two additional cities (one 3SE and one near the sugar, I guess).
S-S-SE looks to me like it has some flood plains in the fog, and we can get the curragh out from a site down there.
My guess is that S-SE-SE is a desert, and S-S-SE and 3S are FPs.

But only with a temple or two additional cities (one 3SE and one near the sugar, I guess).
I was thinking a city above the sugar yes, and the one southeast to share the FP when we have a new government. The sugar and BG will be initially out of reach but we have to build a granary and have so many tiles to improve it shouldnt impact our timeline. Just run a worker factory until we get more shields.

No temple!
More cities!

EE will run as an 8 turn SF or 4 turn WF with no granary starting at size 4 with 3 irrigated plains if the first corrupted shield is the 5th. (or starting at size 3 with a mined bg and an irri plain)

I'm OK with that.

EEN does the same thing, and leaves room for a city to the south later

Settler is due on turn 14 (or 15 if we want a warrior after :) )

so that should just leave us enough time to decide where to put it!

attached is a dotmap giving some candidates. (The numbers are not a proposed order!)

1, 2 and 3 have been discussed before, (we could build 1 and 3)

4 is OK as although it is in Jungle it is on a river and so would have 3fpt.

5 is slightly better, it saves having to road the jungle tile to get the lux,

both 4 and 5 might be coastal, if that is a delta I see

6 has at least one FP probably 2 so would be a worker factory at least

7 has high shields in the long term and could be a military city.

Is the bush S of 5 forest or jungle? If forest then a nice location with quick lux, shields to chop and a BG. I'd prefer a slightly closer build when playing humans. These games seldom reach IA anyway so huge metros don't come in play.

Its a forest. But putting the city on 5 is quicker as we can chop (4 turns) and road (3 turns) the forest quicker than we can road the jungle (9turns!) at 5!

Both BG's will be used by Graceland for the SF, and one is in reach from 5 in any case if we want to do any switching.

Its a forest. But putting the city on 5 is quicker as we can chop (4 turns) and road (3 turns) the forest quicker than we can road the jungle (9turns!) at 5!

Both BG's will be used by Graceland for the SF, and one is in reach from 5 in any case if we want to do any switching.

I did mean on 5, not on the forest.

Is that the one to go for first though? - it looks a little light on the shields given the BG's are already used. If we did that the implications for the worker moves are to chop the forrest sooner, and irrigate the FP's later. The chop means that we can have the extra warrior without slowing the SF.

Just for reference settler 1 comes out turn 14 or 15, settler 2 comes out on turn 31 and then we are in to a 4 turn cycle.

I don't have a strong opinion on 5. Firts cities are so much about doing the math and that's not my fav area of interest. Count the beans and pop where best suited. I do like the opportunity to (by the looks) build offensivly rather than behind our back.

I don't have a strong opinion on 5. Firts cities are so much about doing the math and that's not my fav area of interest. Count the beans and pop where best suited. I do like the opportunity to (by the looks) build offensivly rather than behind our back.
I second that thought! Getting the lux online soon will be nice but not necessary if we have some MPs (we are going to monarchy). RF almost has me sold on the city 3 NE. We probably could use a poll for the matter.

I second that thought! Getting the lux online soon will be nice but not necessary if we have some MPs (we are going to monarchy). RF almost has me sold on the city 3 NE. We probably could use a poll for the matter.

Thats funny - you almost have me convinced on 1 as it works better where the road is now. I'm thinking 1,3,5 or 1 5 6. But I think you're right, sombody organised better set up a pole (hadn't they Daghie;) ?)

I'd go for 1 as it can be a 4-turn settler factory once 3 is built.

I voted 1 in the poll after considering the SoZ, which we want. This city can build it fairly easily after a warrior, worker, granary and some workers and 2-3 settlers. This is at the cost of some expansion, but our aims are expansion by the sword it seems. Maybe even cut the granary out of that equation to get it built more quickly (if we want the Pyramids this wont hurt much) and hurry our science toward monarchy/get a curragh out a bit quicker.

Boy I am wonder crazy. SoZ however is not a wonder, it is 640 shields worth of units (if we use it for 80 turns) at less than half the cost. Pyramids can be built in our GA or if we are remote then to start our GA. Hopefully we will have republic by then.

If we get the Pyramids we are in a hugely strong position - I'm not sure the SoZ has quite that impact good though it is. The question is if we do a prebuild and are beaten to both (and both will be targeted by many) what is our concelation prize and is it worth a prebuild of 200 shields or so. Also when do we squeeze Masonary in to the tech plan.

Pyramids would be the best wonder for us.

There's a fur N of 4; not significant enough to alter anything at this point though.

We need a major dotplan for what seems to be our starting island. I tried taking a screenshot, but lost it. This is the area where I am probably weakest, so we need some discussion from the team here.

Questions are

1 Where do we put the next 10 or so cities (or where do we want cities on the island)

2 Which are the highest priority.

If the concensus is to opt for a 100k attempt then you'll want to pack 'em in for the additional culture and to prevent the settler in a landing party from being able to make a beachhead city.

Gotta pack 'em in tight, but we also have to defend every city.

I dont know if these will be readable or not. They will require some revision by someone. Edit/move the spots around but what settling order do we want? As far as worker moves, where should we road to to get the most settlers down quick enough?

I had thought to send one up to 16 by the wheat in the NW, but a city there wont have a worker for some time. There is an additional city site on a 1 tile island to the west that I missed earlier.

Is it possible to open saves from turns already played to produce a new dotmap?

I've tried repeatedly to rearrange the city sites from your dotmaps, but have been unable to see where any improvement can come from. City 37 looks like it can move one SE to get a freshwater bonus from the lake in the south and I don't see a city site by the wheat in the south on your dotmap, but everything looks generally good.

I suppose most of our new cities will be science cities with productive cities already in place once improved. I suggest roading north next since the grassland/freshwater sites can be improved quickly. When more workers are available the grassland to the northwest can also be roaded/settled quickly and another road crew can be sent east for their freshwater sites. A couple of fogbusters on the mountains south could prevent barb harrassment from the south if we can disband their camps. I'll keep looking for more suggestions, but others may have better ideas.:)

@ Killer - I would continue settling with city #2. I think the numbered "dot map" is a good plan.

Is it possible to open saves from turns already played to produce a new dotmap?
Sure all the saves are in the gmail inbox.