Well, due to a computer meltdown I am currently posting using a 640x480 resolution and with a colour depth of 16 (yes 16, not 16 bit). Pretty it ain't.

But anyway on to debates of further importance. It seems decided that our Eastern will establish our capital where it stands next turn (if you disagree say so!), however the future of our second settler has not yet been confirmed. The options are thus:

1. Build where it is. It seems a nice spot and those settlers are too tired after all that road building to move anymore.

2. Build to the SW. I believe Starlifter said that this site wiould have no more that one special in it's radius, can that be confirmed oh holy predictior of resources? ;) But it does give us the advantage of another port city, and if we dont settle near those roads then why the hell did we build them!?

3. Move S then SW and build there. Again we get another port city and I thinkStarlifter may have said it had a good chance of some specials (don't attack me if he didn't or anything...;)). However it would encroach on the radius of our capital, so unless we build it knowing it could never reach full potential, we would all have to live knowing we have robbed the populace of true greatness. Or something.

4. Build somewhere to the north (please specify). Get the silk and possibility of more resource goodies. But then if we move what the hell was all that road building for...

5. Do some tile improvements around our capital. Sacrifice another early city for a more developed one? It wouldn't make much difference in Despotism but since we are going full pelt for Monarchy it could be a decent investment. Note use of word could.

6. Other. If so then enlighten us with your as to unheralded (or, more likley overlooked by me) plan.

Discovering what using a PC looked like in 1984 (not the book, dumbass), Mordhiem, Domestic Advisor.

Due to the surrounding terrain and the fact that we are going to cover all (or maybe not some that are offshore too far) specials anyway, the original NW site (which is currently the Grassland NON-shield to the SW of the settler's location) is quite good. It fits well with the game plan, and also physically fits well and allows cities in the east (where the horseman is exploring) to be of significant power. This settler needs to get cranking out at least a couple settlers & units ASAP, by founding a city right after the Capital/SSC. The 3rd city can be spawned from this settler, which can then really crank out the babies. :)

I agree with Starlifter. Since he's given the arguments once,
I won't repeat them.

I can't disagree with Starlifter on this issue. I would like to see the settlement produced soon as time is of the essence this early in a diety game.

I agree on the city being built on the same turn as the SSC, but I'm not too thrilled about the location.

We're then going to build another city to 'fill the gap' between our SSC and the second city?

I like the idea of building the second city at (87,65). We can still get it built the same turn as the SSC and it covers the terrain a bit better. Granted, it may not be the best choice of terrain, but it seems better than having to build a 'gap city'.

I agree with whatever starlifter said. :satan:

I agree on the city being built on the same turn as the SSC, but I'm not too thrilled about the location.

We're then going to build another city to 'fill the gap' between our SSC and the second city?

I like the idea of building the second city at (87,65). We can still get it built the same turn as the SSC and it covers the terrain a bit better. Granted, it may not be the best choice of terrain, but it seems better than having to build a 'gap city'.
The rationale for the Grassland Shield (GS) SW of the settler is that it will be a long time before all the filler terrain in the "gap" area is filled with citizens using the terrain. It probably won't be until about 100 to 300 AD that the Gap City (assumed city #3) will be large enough (about size 12) to have to restrict it's use of citizens. It will likely be stunted beyond this, if we use it heavily to be a settler cow. So it does not actually need to be huge. It's real value will also come from producing caravans every time a commodity is available (assuming it is not a hide repeater, in which case it will have to mix in settlers and hides, not just hides).

There are two big disadvantages to putting city #2 at (87,65). First, it is on a grassland shield (GS) when a suitable non-GS is available (86,66) and (84,64). The latter is the non-GS that is next to the settler right now.

The 2nd problem, as it is now currently known based on exploration, is the limited land to the east. There will be no special to the east of the eastern forest (e.g., no whales), and if the 2nd city is at (87,65), then any east coast city will be weak, due to overlap of land squares and lack of shield production.

A third reason, but not problem, is that a city on the GS at (87,65) will not alleviate the crowding of the #3 city, and in fact may either cause wasted terrain near the hut (esp. ocean terrain), or if a city is placed on a forest to recover the ocean, it will crowd the city.

A gap city will be necessary in any event, as Lt. Killer M. was originally noticing in a prior thread... all terrain is so good that we just don't wanna waste it.

There is a slight additional reason for not putting the #2 city on the GS... we may wind up needing a Panama Canal on one of the 2 forests where the horseman is. If so, there would be great overlap, unnecesarily, with a city at the GS.

Anyway, those are some of the lines of thought for the #2 city at the spot to it's SW. Oh, we'll also get a few more gold for the SSC trade routes, as the SW spot is 6.5 from the SSC and the GS is 5.5. :)

Just a suggestion, but I figure at lot of you guys are much better players than I am!!!;)

What I would do is use the second settler to improve land to begin with. As it doesn't come from a city, it will require no support so those extra bits of food can be used for the cpital to grow a bit quicker and start churning out settlers for town building later on.:goodjob:

If somehow we manage to get a nomad from the hut then it would be nice to save it, but for the moment I don't think we can afford to sacrifice the increase in production and trade just to save a single food per turn (two later). Besides, we want to spread to fill the continent and don't want to compromise our science by building settlers from the SSC but do want it to be the capital so we can't really get any more settlers from there if we found that first and save the other one.
Apart from that, I have been convinced that saving the grassland shield and founding our second city beside the two roads is a good idea so let's go. We can decide on other city sites when we have uncovered more territory and built our first settler. :D

Becka said:
I agree with whatever starlifter said. :satan:

Shame on you! We want your input! If you want the glory of citizenship of the New Union of Fanatica then you'll have to show your own ideas! ;)

Jayne, I agree completely with you. I am, The Settler from None. What I've learned is: by building a second city with the Settler, we improve our changes that a Hut will be another Settler from None. So, we get our cake and eat it too.

Starlifter, Smash, and all: if we get a Settler from None from a Hut, might we keep it forever?

Starlifter, Smash, and all: if we get a Settler from None from a Hut, might we keep it forever?

Believe it or not, I am a relative newcomer to the philosophy of building with the 2nd settler. Smash is the one who finally convinced me thru his posts. I was squarely in Jayne's camp of improving the capital for "free" (and in some situations, I still do).

The hut nomad is probably going to be a "depends" thing, and an excellent vote topic when it happens. Personally, I don't set a hard rule one way or the other, since the game pretty much "speaks" to you most of the time!


Shame on you! We want your input!

I think Becka was very subtly saying that she was not going to repeat all my techno babble (the "satanlook" at then end!).... it takes forever to say in words what one finger pointing on a screen could do :). And I'm not one for sparing the bytes in a post anyway :lol: .


by jayne:

Just a suggestion, but I figure at lot of you guys are much better players than I am!!!

Never be shy about speaking up... ;) .

A good thing about using the other settler to found a 2nd city is that we can get a jump on expansion, and give the capital a chance to get started on a wonder soon. You gotta get a 40% jump on the early game wonders, or you'll loose them to the AI at Deity. Two whales at the capital really take the pressure off immediate terrain improvement, since we will use the whales at first. Hopefully, the other ocean special is a whale, too... but we need to bribe a Barb's trireme to have a looksie at the 3rd whale (gee, I really do hope its not a rotten fish!!) in a few hundred years.

Typically, support cities can provide settlers to work the terrain. Our #3 city will be able to spew setters... even the #2 can. And the Pres and/or VP will doubtless find huts... we have a very good chance of a NONE settler.

:)

Thanks for your replies guys!!!! I'm here to learn!! :lol: