Again, in a premature way, but important nonetheless, I'd like to discuss early city placement strategy. As soon as we have scouted a bit, we should know better what our options are. This thread will be open for many turns, I hope. I encourage participation, discussion, and proposals for city sites, locations, and strategies.

Here are my thoughts on city location priorities:
First settler:
I'd like to get the settler settled as soon as possible (within a move or 2). Use the worker to look one space and from that, go for the best city site. Settling next to a river is important, so no aqueduct is necessary. A high growth potential is needed. If our first city or 2 cannot grow quickly, I think we may get way behind.

Second settler priorities (in order):
1. Growth potential. If the first city is used for military units, we need a second site to grow quickly to supply another worker, another settler, and complementary units. Always choose a site on a river if possible.

2. First luxury. Getting a luxury early may mean we do not have to use the entertainment slider at all and as many military police to get the maximum production from cities.

3. Capital proximity. I'd like to keep our cities with a bit of overlap so they can one day peak just over the metropolis line. A dense build should help us more than a very scattered build.

Ideas? Thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions?

Edit: First Map from the Cartographic Office (for argumentative and illustrative purposes):
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/fanatika-4000bc.jpg

I'd like to see our first few cities placed with no more than 2 clear tiles between them and our capital. This will keep early corruption and waste to a minimum, while allowing the cities a moderate level of growth without compromising early game turn advantage.

And we should scout and assess the immeditate area for maximum shield output.

I'm in favor of sticking our first city where the settler is. Experience has shown me that that later you found that city, the worse off you'll be.

My experience has been that your starting position will be next to fresh water (inland lake/river), on grassland, plain, or floodplain, with a luxury and a few hills/mountains near. Then again, with complete randomness, we're asking for trouble. The starting site, then, is usually the best.

I agree with octavion. I think we should build our 1st city right were the settler lands. As a commerce leader, I suggest we build near the coast to maximize commerce, however as a civ player i say we scout the area 1st, then assess city placement. Our initial cities should be close to the capital, to minimize corruption

The spot the settler is looking pretty good to me so far. Next to a lake (so no aqueduct) and a nice mix of grass and hills.

go aqueductless city!

We have started in the north apparently near the sea. Perhaps it would be to our advantage to settle a ways to the south. I do not think it is that important to settle with in a tile or two of the start location. I'd rather find a more central location for the capital than build now and move the capital later.

plant the settler where she stands...

I say at least move the worker onto the nearby mountain on turn one to get some more info.

BTW, nice avatar, Cyc.

I am infavor of setteling where the settler is at now :).

Originally posted by eyrei
I say at least move the worker onto the nearby mountain on turn one to get some more info.

It seems we have 3 options:
1. Settle on one of the spaces shown (perhaps the original spot even).
2. Move the worker a space to reveal additional terrain.
3. Move the worker and settler to find another area.

Implemenation of #1 is easy. #2 would require a half-turn to allow us to again look at our possibiliites. #3 would require a longer time, perhaps a "seeking" chat. Sounds like a good poll?

Looks like I've been beaten to the punch by my Domestic Deputy :) Check out the poll here:
Should we settle here? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31177)

Head one tile north. Given our map position there is a high probability that the water there is coastline. A capital city on the coast with a fresh water source is a huge bonus.

The probabilty is that there are more mountains to the south, so worker exploration in that area would be useless. To the east, the forest most likely continues. Therefore, the best places for exploration, short of long term, would be to our north and west, where the grasslands continue.

Because of the mountains and hills (little food production), it's a prime canidate for a tight build. *me remembers being against tight builds in Term 1 of the 1st Demogame! :rolleyes:* It would give us quite a few size 3-5 cities, with maybe around 7-9 production. The drawback, of course, is lack of city growth for the endgame.

Lower food production could be fixed if we place the city next to the lake and coast. Once we get a harbor, we'll get 2 food from each. As an added bonus, there's the possibility of whales/fish.

Originally posted by eyrei
I say at least move the worker onto the nearby mountain on turn one to get some more info.

BTW, nice avatar, Cyc.

I think moving the worker up on the mountain on the first turn is a good idea. That will give us a good view into the unknown. But I don't think any additional info will sway my opinion of planting the sttler on the first turn.

BTW, thanks.

I still think the settler should moove north for placement. We will only loose one turn for it. We could use the worker to go there first to have a clearer picture of the surrounding, then post the pic, then decide in detail ?

Originally posted by disorganizer
I still think the settler should moove north for placement. We will only loose one turn for it. We could use the worker to go there first to have a clearer picture of the surrounding, then post the pic, then decide in detail ?

If we did this, I think we should have to return to the forums to decide then. No problem, but just thats probably what we should do, IMHO.

The reason I like this spot over 1 tile N is immediate access to the bonus (2/2/0) square. Plus this leaves us 3 grasslands to work on, rather than settling on one. Furthermore, if there are more grasslands to the North, we leave more squares for the next city possibly.

Needless to say, I agree with chiefpaco.

Chieftess, would you mind using the next chat simply to move the worker in one direction or the other, come back to the forums, and discuss further

that would be a very short one then... maybe we should even have that one taken offline, if our rules would allow that?!?
judical review?

It'd just be like the creation chat... a single thing done, game saved, and posted for review, with a little bit of discussion on the results of the single action.

Originally posted by disorganizer
that would be a very short one then... maybe we should even have that one taken offline, if our rules would allow that?!?
judical review?

Hmmm.... maybe if turn chats were optional then it would be easy to do this. Maybe if terms were based on game years rather than the calender month then the DP wouldn't hesitate to move a worker, post the save and wait to do more turns later.

As for judicial review, what for? The constitution says turns must be played out in a public chat. If you want the worker moved then do it in a public chat and be done with it. I really have no idea what the CoL and CoS say about this...

Ok. So nobody must be there at the chat ;-) Now this sounds like offline playing for me, so it will be ok to do so when the chat would have been announced last sunday, as we have to announce the playouts on sunday and with 24h notice.

Let's not get carried away here. The Domestic Leader has the final say on this issue (as far as placement). If he wants to have a look at a location before placement, I think we need to give him that option. This is a very important decision and it's on his shoulders. I'm not apposed to moving the worker 1 tile North as our first move either. If that's going to be it for the entire chat, so be it. If cp plans on attending the chat and with the approval of the people wants to plant the city there, that's fine too. I don't think we should make it an off-line move. Donsig - Are there any other political agenda issues you would like to bring up here before we continue this topic? :D

It could be possible for the worker to be moved in the chat, than have the DP describe the surroundings. It'd be even better if a picture could be placed somewhere, for review of the people in the chat, than for it to continue.

We have to make a very important decision right now(major understatement). If we place the city where it is now, then we will have a landlocked capital for a long time. Since our capital is likely to be our best city for quite a while, we will want it to be able to perform the most possible actions. This means we lose out on building galleys, and the Colossus, and Lighthouse most likely. If we build one tile north, then our capital will have access to the sea (assuming it is ocean tile, i can't be sure, someone should check the food production, as it would be 1 for Ocean). This means that getting a harbor, and all other other 'stuff' I already mentioned would be infinately easier. Also, in ten turns we will get access to the game forest anyway, so the mineral loss will only be about 10. That means one less warrior, . :cry: . The economic benefits of sea access, including the later use of offshore platform and harbor, can't be denied. In short, build one tile north.

Well it appears that the only real debate is either moving it one square directly north, or keepin the settler where he is. So what is the harm of moving the worker up one square? If we move the worker up then we can make our descision a lot easier, so move the worker up one and then decide, it isn't worth all this guessing right now if we can avoid it.

Agreed, there seems to be two topics going on here. First to settle in place or on the coast. Second to move the worker.

I don't think anyone disagrees with moving the worker on to the mountain or the hill, and that can be done next chat. I can't see anything that they would find that would cause us to run our settler over to the area, so this is an issue that is not of immediate concern compared to placement.

Has anyone posted the minimap to show where we are in relation to the great blackness?

Also, I am cognizant of the advantages on the coast, and guessing terrain at this early stage can be a hazardous occupation, but.... Depending upon the world, and based on what we see, I would be inclined to park it right on the lake without moving. The reason being that most of our cities will be build south and perhaps west (depends on that darn mini map).

Plus, the grassland NW can probably be used to support two cities, versus just one if we move north, and getting the use of that game tile early isn't bad. Finally, we are hoping to find iron in those immediate hills, and it would nice to have them within a cultural boundary early.

Bill

oh, and those mountains and hills, along with the forest if we don't chop it, will provide excellent production for the Great Library.

Actually I am against moving that worker in that direction, and would rather put it to road/mining the shielded grassland ASAP.

Yeah I know, there's always one... ;)

Here is a picture of the latest information. I have 3 city sites proposed using a 2-space-1-offset build scheme to (in my mind) maximize city spacing while minimizing capital distance.

The red dot is on spices. I propose this site first. It would take only one more road build and a city here to connect the spices. Plus it looks like a good spot to me. It is a bit early to debate since the settler won't be placed next round but might as well discuss something...

Red and blue might be nice to take advantage of some food bonuses. Green would also be on the coast.

Responses? Ideas? Please share.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/Fanatika_3650BC_city.jpg

We shouldn't build directly on a resource. You lose the resource bonuses if you do that.

CP,

I'm torn. I tend to try to lock up seacost, and we could quickly irrigate the grasslands between Bavaria and the "green" coastal city. But I would also like to push towards our potentila neighbors quickly, the two game-enhanced forest tiles make me think "blue". I don't see a compelling reason for "red" other than to move in that direction, but first things first.

Leaning slightly toward "blue"

Originally posted by Shaitan
We shouldn't build directly on a resource. You lose the resource bonuses if you do that.

Clarification? I was under the impression that this restriction only held for food and shields (which we know spices only boost gold). Maybe I shall take a look. I'll happily reconsider if what you say is indeed true.

Woah, we can play ahead! No way, this is a major surprise. I am a member of Apolytonia as well as Fanatika, and in the realm of the Banana we aren't allowed to play ahead. Why didn't somebody say so? :mad:

Now that we know what we are looking at, I think that Chiefpaco has the right idea.

cp and I have the same basic idea (get the spice and the game), but my plan would take the cities out a little further. The first city would go where the brown square is (#1). This would get the two game and would only overlap one of the mountain tiles. The second city would be the blue square (#2). This tile is still unseen.

I would move the cities out from Bavaria to take advantage of this great real estate we have been blessed with. I think we have the time to move a couple of tiles further.

Also, I would now change the original build queue to warrior/warrior/warrior/settler/barracks/settler. We need to get that spice as well as the game tiles in a hurry.

Build queues might look like - #1 barracks, archer, archer, settler. #2 temple, whatever.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/Bavaria3650cp.gif

Originally posted by Donal Graeme
Woah, we can play ahead! No way, this is a major surprise. I am a member of Apolytonia as well as Fanatika, and in the realm of the Banana we aren't allowed to play ahead. Why didn't somebody say so? :mad:

Now that we know what we are looking at, I think that Chiefpaco has the right idea.

What CP meant was, is that he would create a new (editor or civ3), or check one of his current games. We can't play out the turns.

I think before we plan cities ahead, we should explore to the north of Bavaria. A coastal city should be a priority, for the sake of the navy.

Octavian: I hope to explore more next turn but the next settler may be ready for the turn after that. 2 spots are in the dark so it does seem early. However, I wanted to establish what I was thinking so far. Besides, times between turns can sometimes seem short. I do like your navy idea (even if it is early) and I would want at least the 3rd city to have a coastline. Maybe even a city to the E of Bavaria could be a good spot but we just don't know that yet.

Cyc: I wonder why you think spacing the cities would be more beneficial for us overall? I think keeping the cities closer makes them easier to defend, connect, and less corruptable. Besides, if we chose spot "2", spices would not be in our sphere of influence automatically and it would take our worker many turns to connect the cities.

I don't really want to explore with the settler. With a couple seemingly good options already, I think we can't go too wrong with what we have already. Of course, we'll know a bit more next turn.

i think we should expand to fill all avaliable sites with a maximum total of 2 spaces of radius overlap. i use this deaign all the time and works very well, it is a little slower than more dispersed plans and causes a little more corruption than denser plans but with all the city improvements and government options available later in the game, corruption shouldnt be much of a problem. the important thing about my proposal is that it takes maximum advantage of the available area, creates a moderately dense network, and expands the borders quite quickly.

neutral leader is a good, responsible provincial governor

Originally posted by disorganizer
Ok. So nobody must be there at the chat ;-) Now this sounds like offline playing for me, so it will be ok to do so when the chat would have been announced last sunday, as we have to announce the playouts on sunday and with 24h notice.

Hey, dis, where's the 24 hour rule? I think we dumped that a loooong time ago. Wake up and read the rules. If you find that rule post a link to it. ;)

How about one tile south of the blue dot so both game tiles are available to the new city right away? unless we trade for ceremonial burial we can't build culture improvements yet...

Here is an updated map for the 2nd city site. It should be placed next turn so I would like to vote for possibilities. I hope I can get the vote up tomorrow. But first, final proposals are still being accepted. Here is the current map with proposals from me and Cyc agreed to go with just #1. Donsig also proposed a site one spot under the blue. If people can second any proposal, I would appreciate it so I know it really belongs in the poll. The poll so far is: Red, Blue, Green, #1.

Also, 2 tiles NW of the Blue might be good too (the other side of the cattle). Any spot next to the spices could also work well. We have so many choices!

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/Fanatika_3150BC_CitySpots.jpg

I think the green square should be settled fisrt since we want a city with lots of food to make settlers.

Can you tell me which one is the green square? My monitor (not my game monitor) is a bit on the fritz. :)

With the settler being built the next turn chat, we need to pick a location. (make a poll)

build some cities along the coast, make some $$$.

I'd advocate building the next city on a coast. We cannot afford the let our navy suffer, due to the lack of coastal cities! The coastline to the east of Bavaria might be our best bet.

CT - The green one is west of the cattle on the coast, north of Bavaria.

Ok, I see what you mean. Now, the file server is slow (for me atleast), and the image isn't loading.

I like all of them. The Green could be a powerful coastal city. The blue will have good defense (on a hill) and access to 2 bonus tiles immediately. The Red will allow us to hook up spices almost immediately and save us money off our entertainment slider in the future and add to our score!

Maybe I like blue the best to get the most food bonuses so we can get out another worker and a settler.

I did a test and am quite sure that settling on a luxury does not affect the gold bonus. While we are despotism, we may not realize the full benefits of any square, but the gold bonus stays intact. Settling on the spices will immediately give that city access to it and once we get a road to the capital, access there as well.

Spices give +2 to gold according to the manual. I suspect a town there will generate 3 gold (1 for the town bonus +2 for the spices). 1 may be lost because of the despotism resulting in a net gold of 2.

i agree w/octavion+chiefpaco on the green.

I also second octavion X and chiefpaco's decision on the City to be in the green. We can have a coastal city and be able to get the Cattle resource :D.

i think all the sites are respectable. I hink we should in the future, settle on these locations or around them. However, for the 2nd city, i still go w/green.