General conversation has lead me to think that we will be building a settler here, but of course the vote decides.

I think we should build a settler and get settling elsewhere! If we could get a 2+ special site including the silk then that would help no end to our early development.

--EDIT--

Doh, forgot to place a poll on this thread. Errr, a little help mods? :)

I agree that this city should start building some settlers so that we can colonise this continent but our first build should be a warrior so that the city will not go into disorder when it grows and allows us the chance to build settlers quicker. A warrior first and then settlers. :goodjob:

Could the newly-found archer be used to supress disorder?

I personally would like to see it used to assist in exploration - it would do the top costline, whilst the chariot does the south one. It all depends on how much land is available out west.

ainwood: :goodjob:

It is my preference for the archer to be used to counter disorder but I thought that the consensus was for it to explore. I suppose that we could get a thread for that in particular, between the military and foreign advisors.

I'd like a warior for defense and then settler for further expanding of our empire! :D

I can't add a poll to a thread that is already made.

Make a new thread (with the poll), put a link in this thread to that one and a link in that thread to this one.

Then, I'll combine the two threads into one.

After Turn16, the barbs can can appear. One thing to plan is the ability of the units to return to cities, if neccessary. At some point, we will need a double move unit on the road system in our core empire (not built yet, naturally). The horseman will do. That unit is the one that kills the Barb Leaders, and puts out fires (e.g., unhappiness).

With 3 NONEs, there is no worries with exploring and some happiness control. Just always count the # of turns to return to the respective city (e.g., the SSC needs something before size 3, which will occur in 10+1+15+1=27 turns.

Warriors make good explorers, but that Archer and Chariot can eradicate civ if they find one quick. :satan:

A yes the obligatory free archer.....hmmmm.....I always use single move free units as a garrison while the city builds a settler.

I think we ought to station the Archer in Thunder Falls, to
allow unimpeded settler production. Also, since Archie is only
1 move, he isn't going to speed up exploration that much,
seeing as how we already have the Chariot and Horse.

Au contraire, I say that we should send the archer to the capital so that we can build the Colossus without interference from those nasty red people. If the chariot comes across any worhtless tribes then we could send the archer to assist in any assault but for the time being I think that we need him more in the cities.

Build a settler - bring the archer back to keep order once we're past size 1. Then rush build the setler as soon as cash allows.

Two build sites to consider:

- the isthmus city site to the south looks good
- alternatively the potential two special to the NW

The first Settler is a priority -- if the Archer is necessary then so be it. After that, building Colossus in SSC seems to be everyone's priority. Move the new Settler to found a city on the green between our 2 cities.

Re SE exploration, we need to determine the land. Would a canal thru the isthmus be relevant, or not...

What!
I can't believe that you want a city between the two we already have. There will be a couple of spare squares there when both the first two are at max and I don't want a new city to impinge on the SSC's growth potential. Every workable square is needed so that we can make the most of our trade. I'm quite happy to put another city in the gap when we have colonised the rest of the continent but if it takes anything away from the SSC then it'd be a waste of time. I like the idea of an isthmus city, but agree with Gary that we should wait until we have uncovered more terrain before we start planning extra city sites. The usefulness of the canal city could be minimal and so that might cause us to reappraise. Besides, the first settler is some way off yet so we have plenty of time to explore properly. :goodjob:

I agree. The settlers being built in ThunderFalls should not be sent norht until the continent is full. Expand outwards.

However, what will the balance be between settlers for improvements and settlers for settling?

I often have each settler improve on square (either at the source city, or the target), but never really considered whether this was "optimal" or not. Although, I do think that a few more improvements (mining / irrigation) around Thunderfalls would be beneficial in the short-term to really crank the production / food upwards.

I agree the archer should be used as a garrison in one city or the other. Build a settler in that city and defence in the other just in case those pesky Barbs or a particularly mean Civ arrive!;)

At the moment, the archer should move west, since there may be an AI civ out there. Riot control will not be a factor in Regis Civitas for 10+1+15+1=27 days. If the archer moves west, and can return by then, all is well for happiness. The advantage to having the archer go west at first is not only for exploration, but mainly because it is a dominate unit this early in the game. If there is an AI civ out there, the Archer and the Chariot will defeat it easily, and remove that civ from the game early. If it is a small area out west, the Archer will be back in time. Either way, the Archer should be in position by assuming we have a war out west.... and keep an eye on the "range" (return date) of the archer to RC.

I like starlifter's plan to move the archer West, but keep track of when we might need him back. The other issue is when Thunderfalls might need a garrison. Regia Civitas is already building a warrior (I assume that will be the decision there) so is covered for now. The question here is whether to build a warrior before the settler. Which will be faster, to build a warrior first, then a settler, or to start building a settler first and plan on the second citizen playing guitar and singing :D

I believe we should send the Archer NE to the SSC. It may be 27 turns before unrest, but Barbs could appear sooner. The SSC could always use the additional FREE defense. It will save us having to build a unit 27 turns from now. The Chariot can handle the exploration duties to the west, and it is stronger than the Archer if AI is found there. That means we would build a Warrior in Thunder Falls first, then a Settler. :cool:

Now we have a poll!



I have merged both threads together :)

Warrior.

I warrior would be best. We need to defend the city.

Barbarians cannot appear (except from huts) before Game Turn 16. The Lands barbs have no significant chance of appearing near RC, due to layout (topology). Zero change if a city is built north of Thunder Falls. Sea Barbs are less likely than normal because of the surrounding land. Now, Thunder Falls is the one that is most likely to have a barb fight eventually. :)

My opinion has always been 'Beter safe than sorry.' Defense is always a priority for me. We could be unconforably close to someone else who has a group of horsemen heading our way...

As a note, we will need a unit to control teh unhappy dude at size 2. A warrior or Phalanx will do fine, but it must be made before size 2... or else a NONE must be recalled in time. If an AI is on our land to the west, a warrior will allow a 2-unit attack (Chariot & Archer) on the AI in the west, which will destroy an early AI capital.

Fortunately the poll has only just been added to this thread because we now have the option for Thunderfalls to build a settler instead and found a SSC in the special location to the north. The site is an excellent one, but we will be hard pressed to build the Colossus in time.

There is a yellow Plains between our cities, 2 squares west of Regia Civitas. I'll call the site Plains#3. I like that city site because it has 3 greens + forest & ocean. Plains#3 can be controlled to never cramp our two first cities, and it's part of the road which we surely need to connect our two cities.

So, TF builds a Settler, and control the Happiness somehow. Then we'd have two cities building guards and Settlers.

settler to settle the new site, whether it becomes our new SSC or not. Use the Archer to control unhappiness for now.

Now that we know the continent is evidently limited, or at least limited access... and now that we know about the gem city location, TFalls must make a settler immediately. Happiness control can come from the Horseman, in the short term.

If the game goes well, the settler should proceed to the Gems area and found our future SSC, and start Colossus right away. Our gold will be good by the time the settler pops out, so we would then IPRB up to 20s, and send the next setter up north, road the one tile along the way, and found city#4 on the Grassland Shield 3 tiles north of TFalls. Units and setters then spew from both, to support RC and Gems City, and to found the remaining cities, as the game allows.

This rush is to beat the AI to Colossus and hopefully even Hanging Gardens in the Gems City, and then hopefully, we can move the capital as the size increases towards size 8 to 12.

:)

I'm not sure where "Grassland Shield 3 tiles north of TFalls" is.

If we found a city on teh plains 2 tiles West of RC, it will be much quicker to irrigate the central green, north of TFalls.

How about the forest 2 West and 1 NW of RC? since it will have be a Gap City anyways, we might as well try and grab as much usable land as possible.

I'm guessing he was meaning the tile 1 SW of your idea. Which would be 2 NE, 1 N of TF.

I'm not sure where "Grassland Shield 3 tiles north of TFalls" is.

If we found a city on teh plains 2 tiles West of RC, it will be much quicker to irrigate the central green, north of TFalls.
It is the 3rd tile north (the GS tile, the cyan circled spot on the PatternOverlay map with all the red letters on it).

The plains is a good spot, but several reasons make the GS a little better. First, as soon as we hit Monarchy, we get irrigated (3 food per day) instantly. This city must spawn lots of settlers, and support some, too, and the 3rd food essentially gives us a "free" setteler for several dozen turns. There is a very subtle and difficult to explain thing about the later use of the SSC. Essentially, we need only road to this city (and later RR) to get full benefit of the trade of the SSC (Gem City) with RC. This gets us a jump on the bonuses, and leaves less road vulnerable to AI and/or barbs (and so the 50/100% bonus still occurs, when can normally be cut).

The irrigation is not quicker, since the water will come in from the east, due to the GS tiles (e.g., by RC's south whale).

Another reason is we recover a Plains that will otherwise likely be lost, and that tile will have both a R and a RR on it anyway. An inportant pre-Michelanglos Chapel reason is that spot is both 3 from RC and 3 from TFalls.


by Duke of Marlbrough:
How about the forest 2 West and 1 NW of RC? since it will have be a Gap City anyways, we might as well try and grab as much usable land as possible.

That spot (the Forest, if I count right) will loose the juicy GS directly west of RC's south whale. There is going to be a city somewhere north of the Hut, maybe even more than one, and further impingement west by the Support City (this one in the RC-TFalls gap) will not have any net change in usable tiles.

Remember that for the first half of a game, cities cannot occupy anything approaching their full size. We need well-fed cities, like TFalls and this Support City to make & Support settlers, and grassland is the real helper... minimumfuss, max growth & support. :)

Thunderfalls.. hehe.. for a while there, I thought Thunderfall was in this game. ;)

Cute.

Anyway, I always liked the early settler. Early settler = early expansion.

(yep, I'm the "strangely familar citizen" in this game. ;) EDIT: and I even broke a tie! :D)

A comment Chieftess said made me realize that my vote was originally cast for a Warrior, before we discovered the continent was small enough to allow our Horseman to literally return just in time to prevent unhappiness. It probably won't matter as I think the Settler vote will win out now, but if it ties, consider that I would now change my vote to Settler. Moreover, I also favor expending all the gold in our treasury to accelerate the production by two days (IPRB to 20s in 5 turns, buy 4 shields; we'll have 16 gold in Treasury). The reasons are stated elsewhere for the rush.

@ Chieftess: The possible mixups with TF's name, and the impact of searches by keyword in future months are why I'm starting to use TFalls from now on. Hey, haven't we seen you around here before (j/k, I know we have, :D )!

EDIT: Spelling x 4, add exact #s.

Originally posted by starlifter
It is the 3rd tile north (the GS tile, the cyan circled spot on the PatternOverlay map with all the red letters on it).

So, yes, GaryNemo, it is the one that is 2 NE, 1 N of TF's.

That spot (the Forest, if I count right) will loose the juicy GS directly west of RC's south whale.

You would rather us build a city that gets one extra Grassland with a shield then have one that get better overall coverage?

starlifters suggestion would have an overlap of 10 tiles and only 11 usable tiles.

GaryNemos suggestion would give us an overlap of 9 tiles and 12 usable tiles.

My suggestion would give us an overlap of 5 tiles and 16 usable tiles.

So, for the sake of a Grassland shield, we could get a much more usable city location. Because, at some point, all the cities will be maxed out, so why plan for a spot that will guarantee to limit it's long-term usefulness?

Nemo's idea still gets the grassland shield, and allows for more options with irrigation choices.

With this short of a distance, the bonus for trade delivery is just a matter of one or two roaded squares.

GaryNemo's point about irrigation being quicker if the city is built on the plains is a valid one. The central area would have the possibilty of being irrigated quicker. Say we wanted to irrigate the grassland shield that is 2 NE of TF's....

If the city is built on the grassland, the shortest path would be 4 tiles. If the city is on the plains, the path is 3 tiles. Granted, all the irrigation we do in that area should benefit a city somewhere, but if we, for some reason, wanted to target specific tiles for irrigation it does matter. It's nice to see some 'different angle' thinking, Nemo. :goodjob:

There is going to be a city somewhere north of the Hut, maybe even more than one, and further impingement west by the Support City (this one in the RC-TFalls gap) will not have any net change in usable tiles.

It sure could. At least in therms of the cities needed to cover the terrain. We don't know what kind or how much land is over there. This city, along with any new ones we build could fit nicely into it all. Or, leaving the extra room could make it where there is a 'Gap' on the other side of the land mass. So, we could end up needed two Gap cities to cover all the land. We just don't know. Until we know what the entire continent looks like, we should base our decisions on what we know, not what we assume.

So, whether this city uses the land or another city uses it, it doesn't matter a whole lot. So, why purposely limit this city for something that we don't know about?

BTW, this poll was made with what we knew of the world in 3700 BC. It doesn't reflect what we know know.

Ideally we should be having a new poll after every group of turns is played.