2700bc - Barb ship unloads without moving again. 2 archers and a leader.

2650 - Move Ellie onto mountain for defence. Found SSC.

2600 - LP builds settlers. No growth, so start phalanx.

Ellie kills first B.archer and becomes veteran. Other barb stack moves south.

2550 - Rehome RF warrior in SSC

2500 - Discover writing and start Monarchy. Phalanx production change to dip. Ellie kills barbs

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/cfc2450bca.jpg
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/cfc2450bcb.jpg

We need to pick some city names and decide what to do with the LP settler. LP will not grow until the settler builds a city.

:queen:

Eeef, ehm.. Wasn't the SSC ment to be 1 square NW?

Well, we can either:

1) Take it as a set back and build a settler to disband the city and refound it in the correct spot
2) Have Jayne go back to where the city was founded and replay those turns
3) I can look at fixing the city from the save file and we can go from there.

Option 2. I was just rereading the 2950BC thread which has the City Plan for SSC etc.

If we replay from 2700BC, the one Settler is already on the River, moves SE SE and founds on PLAINS RIVER S OF MTN SSC in the first turn, then starts a Phx or Warrior, not sure. RF is building a Phx, but I thought we decided another Settler.

LP will finish its Settler in 2 turns. Again looking at the 2950BC plan, it was supposed to hop S S SE to FILL on the GLS. Start a Settler. And LP starts another Settler, I'd guess. Build no Roads.

Notice that FILL gets that Forest peninsula just out of the radius of SSC. I think that was the consensus plan.

The 2700BC thread was a Barb discussion. No mention of any change in plans for the cities SSC and FILL. Just move Ellie toward RF as planned, move the Warriors the same way, and hope the Barbs move the same way. No big deal.

Am I to understand you want me to replay these turns?!!:eek: This is an April Fool, right?

The SSC is where it is because there had been discussion that it falls better into the specials plan there. There was no objections to these comments, so I thought it was OK.

There was discussion in 2950bc about the LP settler, but no definate instruction. No-one from the Home Office has been seen for days.

RF and LP did not start settlers because at the time it would result in the cities being disbanded. As I said, the intention was to switch once it was safe to do so.

Are things really so disasterous the way they played? Production can be switched. Towns can be built in a different order. Iirc, I did ask for discussion in these areas for the current turn. Those who have been/will be President will know that it's important to have all the relevant information from the department advisors in the current thread.

There should have been a poll about the issue, though I thought we kinda all agreed in the 2950bc thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=877837#post877837)..

Well anyways, no big deal right, as it can be fixed..

EDIT: oh, and about the possible special, I don't think we can get that either way.. It's exactly 2 squares south of where the SSC is now, so it won't fall into the city square..

The location of the SSC is a minor issue in this case since I don't think its current location is any worse than the other location discussed. And replaying is cheating. The only issue I'm slightly unhappy with is the LP settler (should IMO have headed for the 'filler' site).

As a minor complain SSC isn't a very impressive name although it is descriptive. Given the city's location and the fact that it has something to do with science I'd have preferred Delta something (how about "Delta X" ? :D).

I'm not sure (because I cannot download the game at work), but I thought the present location is on jungle river, and the regular location for the SSC was on plains river...

It could have some importance, so I prefer Jayne replay those turns. (even if there is a risk with the barbs...)

'SSC' was a temporary name. I was hoping the Home Office would run a poll or something. As for the tile, OK we miss out on food, but we gain in shields and trade.

I was sending the LP settler towards the C6/7 sites as I didn't see the FILL city map, and I knew the other 'C' sites were planned for later. I agree 'FILL' would have been a better option because LP is not growing. We now need to decide which direction to proceed with the settler. I totally disagree with replaying - but this is a democracy so I will run a poll.

I'll play on Friday, but only if the advisors file their reports in this turn thread. If it's been mentioned in a previous thread, then just assume I'm stupid and post it again. No posts, no play!

The last thing I want to do during play is go searching for something mentioned weeks ago. This will get more and more important as the game progresses and presidents change.

As it is now, I think the following should be done:

RF change production to settler
LP's settler build road where it stands, as next turn RF will grow to size two.. Then head for the square highlighted in Jaynes first picture above (the grasslandsquare 2 squares SE of the silk special) and build next city
SSC change production to settler, rush buy as soon as possible, disband city and make new SSC 1 square NW..
Elephant pop the hut which lies two squares to his south
Warrior head east


Anyways, that's my opinion..

I'd let the warrior rest until he's recovered. We don't know what's out there.

Otherwise, DvR has a good plan.

__________________

T minus 5 posts...

If anyone objects to DvR's plan - please post here. As for the warrior, we decided previously to keep him moving, so I'd like to carry on so.

Me, personally, I'd like to leave the SSC where it is. That city supports the warrior which originally came from RF. It was rehomed to allow RF to grow. Do you want to leave it all as is, or rehome the warrior back to RF and keep RF's production as dip?

Also, can someone run a city name poll today. I haven't time today as Lucy and I have to go and sort lots of stuff out.

I mostly agree with DvR, except for the SSC. Disbanding and moving it is a far too drastic reaction to a minor problem (if it is a problem at all). Also moving a city this early is too expensive and takes too much time. It would be different if we had something like 10 or 20 cities. We should leave the SSC where it is.

I'm attaching an updated map of possible near term city locations. In the western half I prefer C6 (which has been discussed before) but DvR's C8 is also a nice spot. I don't like C7 although it has (or should have) access to several specials. Our settler should IMO found a city at C6 or C8 ASAP.

In the eastern half the first thing to do is to found the filler city. Then C2, C3 or C4 (I prefer C4). There may be a nice spot at C5 if it's not an ocean square. I don't think we should found a city at C0 in the near term since that site is much inferior to FILL and C2 to C5.

There are more nice city sites farther east and west but discussing in detail exactly where to build cities there is probably premature. A "C9" could be added near the elephant but I'd like to see more of the terrain there before doing so.

I like C4, but I think I'd also like a small city on the hill (mined first) NW of C2 as another canal and land-block. It could be used as Hipsheim(?) was last time, for churning out units.l

I also like C6. It's on the river and will act like the infamous GN River Bridge City until we get bridgebuilding. ;)

I forgot to mention that I also think the SSC should start a wonder ASAP. It should maybe build (or rush buy) a temple first to prevent unhappiness while building the wonder.

Should the SSC remain at this position, then I agree with Viking to go for the wonder ASAP..

I don't see the value of the hill city. We're going to own this entire island soon, so the defensive value is minimal, and with C4, the value of another canal is minimal. Furthermore, it will be squeezed between fill, c4 and c5, providing little value.

Jayne's Hill City (called, appropriately enough, "Jayne's Hill") should come later, but could be a good site, even if squeezed. Why C6 so far south? Does it miss specials if it is one square NE? I would not move SSC at this point. Live with what we've got and move on. I'm still hopeful we'll actually find a better SSC site in time. Keep the Warrior moving.

There's talk of building the Colossus or temple in the SSC. Do we want to switch now - wasting 2 turns of shields - or complete a unit first?

Originally posted by Jayne
I'll play on Friday, but only if the advisors file their reports in this turn thread. If it's been mentioned in a previous thread, then just assume I'm stupid and post it again. No posts, no play!

The last thing I want to do during play is go searching for something mentioned weeks ago. This will get more and more important as the game progresses and presidents change.

Jayne, if you don't mind, I posted a poll about what to do..
so consider the poll to be an extension of this thread :D

Originally posted by Jayne
There's talk of building the Colossus or temple in the SSC. Do we want to switch now - wasting 2 turns of shields - or complete a unit first?

Let's go for unit. Let's start the Colossus later.

Give me more Solders noble leader :D. We can get a wonder at a later time :).

I think we need more of a military to defend against barbarians. We should focus on building up a solid defensive and exploration/offensive force to combat any other civilizations we might encounter. Once we have a solid Military, we should go for the Colussus.

Originally posted by DvR
Jayne, if you don't mind, I posted a poll about what to do..
so consider the poll to be an extension of this thread

The Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49578)

Next Turn Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49836)