After the late decision to pop the hut with the legion, I was suprised that for once we didn't get a unit and instead we got a city, which needs naming. I only played one turn because of this and also because the legion and archer that are both to the west need new orders for exploration.

Also the chariot can either go North to explore on the next turn or we can hope that there will be less forests once it starets moving to the south.

Heres the saved game:

We should finish CB in the next batch of turns and then I think we are meant to be researching Alphabet.

Heres the screenshot of our new city (Without its name being changed):

I say that we should take a chance and move the chariot into the forest on the next turn. If we get lucky then we can move through after that onto some "nice" terrain (grassland, plains, desert, tundra) but if we meet even more forest then we can reevaluate. The placing of this new city will provoke lots of debate I predict. I expect that initially it will have lots of corruption trouble, but on second thoughts it's not that far from the capital so we could be all right. I don't expect it to be a phenomenal city, but fortuntely it doesn't take either of the two specials we can see so we can still grab them with a city that we choose where to site. :) It'lll certainly get the science moving along much better. :goodjob:

Btw it would be quite nice if the city was named after the first president of this game ;) The archer could go to TF and swap places with the horse, whilst the legion to the west can explore the coastline NE of it. Are we going to leave the other legion for defence in the new city or shall we continue to explore the surrounding area? It would make sense for the legion to explore the six tiles that we cannot see in Dellville's city area and then it could return to the city. Also what are we going to build in the new city?

I've tried to update the map with the special locations. I've also put in a couple of possible locations for cities.

Someone might want to check that I've got the locations right - the green squares are specials, the red outlines are proposed cities.

From my map, I'd like to give consideration to rapidly exploring the possible 4-specials area to the north of the legion. What would be good is a high-production city up in that area somewhere in which we can build a barracks and churn out a few offensive units - for barbs and any other civs. The whales are good production, and it would be nice to know what the other specials are. Hopefully a pheasant or even coal :)

You're going to be in trouble with the new domestic advisor for forgetting to include GaryNemo's beloved filler city in between the two main cities. ;)
Nice plan, but why have you not chosen to use the three possible specials with the wine and the oasis? Just because we would have to share squares with another city on the rivers seems strange to ignore the potential bonus.

Much better idea!

To be honest, I started drawing in proposed cities, then thought that I had better put the specials in :blush:.

And my humblest apologies to GaryNemo. Double :blush:

We could be unlucky with the possible city to the north if its not connected to the mainland although it should be.

Well there's definitely land on that square, but you're right. It could be part of a separate island. I doubt that it is, but it is possible. We can find out soon enough though. :)

Ainwood, shouldn't the city at the southern end of the river be built on the river as per reasons mentioned in the previous thread?

Anyway, we should send the western legion to the north to explore this 4th 4-special site. The Chariot should continue eastwards, as for the archer, send it back to TF?

Oh, and I almost forgot:

Snibopple

Since I've been nominated for Foreign Minister I thought I'd add my two-penneth here!

I also think send the legion in the east northwards up the coast, send the chariot south to investigate the possible city site. I'd suggest using the legion in Ninevah to initially reveal the final city squares before deciding whether or not to carry on exploring or defend the city.

Originally posted by mordhiem
Ainwood, shouldn't the city at the southern end of the river be built on the river as per reasons mentioned in the previous thread?
Yes, everyone please ignore my city placements!:cry:

Originally posted by ainwood
Yes, everyone please ignore my city placements!:cry:

The general positions are still okay though :) They just need a bit more refining.

Thank you, Dell, for making our move. And thank you, Duke, for thinking of my beloved. Ainwood, I accept your apology and look forward to working with you. We are a team, and people are encouraged to accept challenges, and hence sometimes make mistakes.

My concern with the plan is the lack of a bridge city at the south end of the river. But I like many ideas of the plan, and am not clear yet what to suggest.

Regarding the city along the road to Regia Civitas, I think the malaise stems from a lack of rationale to choose any one site over another. As we learn more, it may become clear. And our new hut city certainly is a fly in our optimizing ointment. But we must be grateful, it yields more science, right now.

The problem with the Legion being supported by Regia Civitas ends now, next turn. We must carefully consider whether to rehome the Legion to its new found city, or leave it RC.

I'm going to post a poll on city naming, and the TFalls Settler, which is coming in a scant 5 turns.

Originally posted by Jayne
I'd suggest using the legion in Ninevah to initially reveal the final city squares before deciding whether or not to carry on exploring or defend the city.

:goodjob:
Great idea! I always like to do this for my cities and since if we support the legion from [unnamed city] then it won't have any production, I say to keep the legion supported by RC and use it to look around the new city but not leave it undefended until it can build its own troops. We're going to need some domestic advisor advice on this one. Gary, take it away. :)

Quite right, Jayne & Duke. I just checked, and our new city is one production and one waste. But I think it could handle the one support without a problem. But more importantly, Regia Civitas will no longer suffer from supporting this Legion.

Let's not rehome the Legion. And surely walk around nearby. We can decide to rehome the Legion if/when it walks back.

Has nobody thought of disbanding this city and replacing it according to our previous plans? It seems to be messing up at least a couple city sites at the moment, and by domino effect several others I'd like to see discussion on disbanding by building a settler and resettling someplace else. And until that discussion is complete, obviously we want to avoid rehoming the Legion, who in the meantime should explore north of the city, and the other legion explore the coast north as well. The Chariot I would probably agree send south even though it's forest.

I'd be in favor of keeping the city. It may work better than we all think There are still many places to put a city.

As for future exploration, can we get the legion to explore north of RC? There's land up there, and it's definetly connected.

Originally posted by Leowind
Has nobody thought of disbanding this city and replacing it according to our previous plans? It seems to be messing up at least a couple city sites at the moment, and by domino effect several others I'd like to see discussion on disbanding by building a settler and resettling someplace else. And until that discussion is complete, obviously we want to avoid rehoming the Legion

This is also my thought right now.

Unless we can make the city work into a good city scheme, I would like to see it disbanded and moved where we want. It will still be a 'free' city, just where we actually want it.

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough


This is also my thought right now.

Unless we can make the city work into a good city scheme, I would like to see it disbanded and moved where we want. It will still be a 'free' city, just where we actually want it.


And it would still generate bonus science while the settler
was a building. I agree that disbanding and moving
is the correct thing. I also vote for exploring the immediate
area of Nineveh with the Legion.

As to city naming:
1) I thought there was already a list for
this that anarchywrksbest created?

2) If we decide to disband, do we even need to bother
with a new name?

Originally posted by duke o' york


:goodjob:
Great idea! I always like to do this for my cities and since if we support the legion from [unnamed city] then it won't have any production, I say to keep the legion supported by RC and use it to look around the new city but not leave it undefended until it can build its own troops.

I did suggest this first, btw :p

Ainwood's city plan isn't that bad and should use most of the specials without disbanding the new city. In Ainwood's plan he didn't include any overlaps, unlike in the other city plans and if they were included then the city plan might be better.

This is just a strategy, which chance will likely bar:

The chariot is best suited to charging off in search of other civs, maybe towards the equator. We can do the thorough exploration, near Regia Civitas for example, with single-move units.

Sean suggests our Chariot charge off in search... I agree. Maybe it will find us a Settler from None! Unfortunately, the Chariot is in a better position to scan the land North of our capital, which I view as a vital task.

So it's not optimal, but I suggest at first we let the Legion walk around the new city, and the Chariot head SE. We have another Legion, currently SW of this new city. It can walk NW. And Sean, maybe the Chariot will end charging off to the great unexplored NE.

Finally, I think we should keep the Legion supported by RC. That sounds like I want to disband our new city, but I do not. Let's make a city plan which includes the South River Mouth for a bridge onto the River, which optimizes for the Gems city, and otherwise provides for some overlap and retaining our new city.

I think the domestic advisor should post a poll on disbanding Nineveh, discussion is going on in several threads now and it would be best to make a poll so that we can have a clear decision on what has to happen.

As president to be (nobody else obviously wants to be pres...) I'd like to know how I can disband a city. I've read that I should build a settler but when the settler is ready the city will have grown to size 2 right? The empire currently has 7 gold so there is no chance we can buy the settler anytime soon.

Well, which Domestic Advisor? Mordheim, I can post a poll tomorrow, or 9/04?, or you can post one today. Whatever.

And Addict (or Civ1, which Nickname do you prefer), I agree it sounds tough to get it done right now. Maybe just keep building Settlers until we can figire it out. If the poll is fatal, I hope not.

Originally posted by civ1-addict
As president to be (nobody else obviously wants to be pres...) I'd like to know how I can disband a city. I've read that I should build a settler but when the settler is ready the city will have grown to size 2 right? The empire currently has 7 gold so there is no chance we can buy the settler anytime soon.

Well, if it is decided to disband the city, you would change the cities workers to something like the desert or the plains on the river. That will gives us production but not a large surplus of food, that way we can build the settler without the city ever getting to size two.

OK, I understand now, thanks Duke.
To the current domestic advisor: post a poll now, if the result gets in before 9/04 I can start playing right away (if nobody else pops up who wants to be president ;) )

An even better thing would be to put the worker on the Ocean square until the food box is full, then switch it to the Desert sqaure.

The ocean would give us 1 extra gold per turn because of the extra trade. All the other terrain only gives one trade, which is taken by corruption. The desert provides no food, so it would make the city sit with no growth until the settler is finished.

I'm still in favor of keeping the city, then just working it into the city plan. I'm almost sure there's a whole lot of land north a RC, and it's sea.

Originally posted by Octavian X
I'm still in favor of keeping the city, then just working it into the city plan.

So am I :goodjob:

Anyway since no one else has run for president then someone needs to be appointed as deputy incase Civ 1 cannot play at some point. I will volunteer for this unless someone else wants to be deputy.

I support Dell as deputy as he knows the game thoroughly, still being the president and soon the former president. :D

Yes, Yes, Dell19 for Deputy President. Let's keep an experienced man. And for Deputy Domestic Advisor, let's keep Mordhiem. It seems like the Deputy positions should fall to these two citizens by default. And let's keep the city, too.

I've been thinking about this, as have we all, and here are some ideas.

http://ePlanOffice.com/hampton/mr_3200c.jpg

We have 3 cities, shown as white Civ grid.
Then Gems and SE 2Whales, seem to have consensus.

I also show RM River Mouth, and the new RB River Bend ideas.

Finally, N1 N2 and N3 cities, and a few roads. The N1 city and roads will provide productive power to get other things done: units, settlers, roads, and a defense network. What if we need another happiness guard? Or if we are attacked by Barbs?

Building order: Gems, N1, N2, perhaps River Mouth. N3 is strangled in The Forest, so it can wait. In case anyone doesn't know, I personally prefer building N1 before Gems.

If Gem City is going to be considered for any possible choice of our SSC, it needs to be built ASAP.

I personally don't like cities to choke each other. I also don't like to leave big gaps of unused land between them either. A little overlap (or no overlap) has always been my preference. ;)

I prefer to build the "real" cities asap and the filler-cities can wait until we've got a few spare settlers. I don't want the filler cities to interfere with the growth of the important cities!

The filler cities will never affect the growth of the primary cities -- we won't allow them to use the other cities' land. They will simply utilize otherwise dead land. Order of building the cities does matter.

If we build Gems first, and do not immediately build a Settler with it, fine. If we found a primary city, then build a Settler with it, we would have been better off building N1 first. We would have saved the walking time -- N1 would have already begun to produce Science, the subsequent Settler will be available sooner, and it could also build a central Road on its way to its founding site.

This may be a little bit too much attention to detail really, but when TF produces the settler then can it go west first to uncover the dark square in TF's radius. As a single move unit, the settler won't need to extend the amount of time it will take to reach Gems City and I'd prefer all the useable tiles to be uncovered where possible.
Other than that, Dell19 for VP! :goodjob:
I like Gary's collection of filler cities so far but maintain that we should build the major cities first and then fill up afterwards.

Originally posted by duke o' york
This may be a little bit too much attention to detail really, but when TF produces the settler then can it go west first to uncover the dark square in TF's radius. As a single move unit, the settler won't need to extend the amount of time it will take to reach Gems City and I'd prefer all the useable tiles to be uncovered where possible.
Other than that, Dell19 for VP! :goodjob:
I like Gary's collection of filler cities so far but maintain that we should build the major cities first and then fill up afterwards. Sounds good. But then what do we do with the archer? Not sure how many turns we are away from barbs, but it may be a good idea to move the archer back towards TF anyway?

I'm pretty sure thats what Civ 1 wanted the archer to do as he put it in his exploration thread.

The Disband poll came out 8 for Grassland Shield River, 4 for Water or Desert combined (2 votes each). Naturally, noone voted for Grassland Plains River! You are all so wise.

So Growth and Settler.

The naming poll? Exploration poll? Are we ready for our President to make a few moves? If not, please say so.

Yeah, let's get it on! The "New Dellville" respectively "Grantham" naming option has an absolute majority and leads by 8 votes, 23 people have voted. The exploration poll has 18 votes in toto. Could use some more, especially as it is a close call between "legion A chariot C" (6 votes) and "legion A chariot D" (9 votes).

If you have adjusted to your comfy chair and the rather large commando desk, Mr. President, I say let's press some buttons!

Somebody called??? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31308)
:lol:

Okay we can see you have played the game... :p

Even playing a few turns of Civ2 is quite an accomplishment for me you know....;)

Originally posted by civ1-addict
Even playing a few turns of Civ2 is quite an accomplishment for me you know....;)

It took me two weeks to be able to play :)

:lol:
I remember now!
I got my Civ2 working immediately but it took me quite a while to upgrade it to Civ2MGE which was needed for the first demo game.

Next Turn thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31308)