It seems that there are no barbs roaming on the plains (pun intended), so I think we can expand agressively, and should expand agressively. NarShaddaa is building a warrior/worker combo every 10 turns, which will supply us with the workers. Also, we have those cities to the NE to settle, and the cities to the SW/W. We could probably get by with each new city building a warrior-worker combo. However, we WILL need a plan, and that's to build roads to the new city locations.

Remember, the barbs seem sedentary, and there are no more barb huts.

I think it's a good idea to expand aggressively, but....a worker every *ten turns*? That's very, very slow.

I think we should try to set up a system so that we get workers at a reasonable rate, like one every two turns or so.

A worker every 10 turns will end us up with about 20 workers for the whole game, which is simply pathetic, especially for a non-industrious civ.

-Sirp.

I say we need to maintain the traditions set by our Forefathers..... Abe must be crushed.... so should Cleo for her betrayals, and Alex for being just plain stupid.

Btw when we meet the Babs... let's demand THEIR map this time, save us alot of trouble....

However, barb huts can still pop up from "fog of war"(the darkened areas on the map), can they not? If this is the case then we need to try to shed light on as much of the map as possible, especially places we plan to send Workers or Settlers.

I also believe that we should consider putting a Settler next in the queue for Noshuret, as well as Gorina once it completes its Granary. I realize that a Temple will help Gorina bring the Iron within its borders, but I'm not sure if we should wait that long to produce more cities.

We need cities fast. Egypt has 6 cities now, and America and Greece have 5 apiece. We need to get back into this game.

If there WERE barb huts, they would have appeared LONG ago, and we haven't found any. I've been exploring the land, and haven't seen one since. The barbs are sedentary. We can expand westward with no fear of conquest. Why? Because no one has mapmaking yet!

Originally posted by Sirp
I think it's a good idea to expand aggressively, but....a worker every *ten turns*? That's very, very slow.

I think we should try to set up a system so that we get workers at a reasonable rate, like one every two turns or so.

A worker every 10 turns will end us up with about 20 workers for the whole game, which is simply pathetic, especially for a non-industrious civ.

-Sirp.

We should build more workers once we get more cities. At this time, Settler building will keep city populations low enough to not need much tile improvement. We will need Workers for the roads, however. I say we settle as much of the mainland(and those Dyes to the East) as we can, and then recruit a massive workforce.

Actually I understand that barbarian encampments can only be spawned in areas that have been explored by at least one civilization.

With sedentary barbarians, the chances of meeting them are very low and worth taking risks over. Remember that mounted barbarians won't show up until 2 civilizations have discovered horseback riding.

-Sirp.

Originally posted by Chieftess
If there WERE barb huts, they would have appeared LONG ago, and we haven't found any. I've been exploring the land, and haven't seen one since. The barbs are sedentary. We can expand westward with no fear of conquest. Why? Because no one has mapmaking yet!

Do we know that the barbs are sedentary for sure, CT? I don't believe we voted for sedentary barbs(random maybe). All I can say is I have had games where things are going great, and then all of a sudden these barbs come out of the darkness and start undermining my plans. I just don't want that to happen to us.

Originally posted by Sirp
Actually I understand that barbarian encampments can only be spawned in areas that have been explored by at least one civilization.

With sedentary barbarians, the chances of meeting them are very low and worth taking risks over. Remember that mounted barbarians won't show up until 2 civilizations have discovered horseback riding.

-Sirp.

@Sirp - We have explored all of our lands to the west. Are those therefore subject to encampments since we have already explored them? If so, then we need to eliminate the "fog of war" as much as possible or risk losing units to some wayward barbarians in the near future.

The risk of barbarian horsemen is probably moot right now because only Egypt has the Wheel(may or may not have Horseback Riding). However, we don't know how close the other 8 civs may be.

@CT - I just checked and we chose Random barbarians, and I seem to remember Shaitan saying he wouldn't allow the Sedentary setting to even be considered. I would need his clarification on that however.

But even then, I hope you would agree that our early-game dealings with the barbs have been anything but sedentary. ;)

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


We should build more workers once we get more cities. At this time, Settler building will keep city populations low enough to not need much tile improvement. We will need Workers for the roads, however. I say we settle as much of the mainland(and those Dyes to the East) as we can, and then recruit a massive workforce.

The best way to get lots of settlers is to build fairly strong cities, with granaries, supported by worker improvements, that can build settlers fast. Not by continually nuking cities back to 'tiny' size by building many settlers as some specious excuse for not building workers.

And yes, if you have explored an area, barbarian encampments can spawn there. However, with 'sedentary' barbarians, few will.

-Sirp.

The barb option was random. The only barbs we have encountered thus far were from goody huts (not barbarian camps).

@Shaitan - are you then saying that past performance is indicative of future performance? Are we out of the woods as far as barbarians go? I would like this clarified, if at all possible. If there is any risk of ambush on our perceived lands, we should still excercise caution.

@Sirp - I am not proposing an "all Settlers, all the time" method of expansion. I just think that we should at least try to stay competitive with our rivals. This means building a Settler each from our two strongest cities now. The next two sites founded can then assume the task of Settler production, if they are able.

More cities = more workers down the road. We should bite the bullet now and settle some sites while there is no military risk.

BTW, you should know that I have been dead set against using Noshuret to build any more Settlers up to this point. But we need new Settlers now. Noshuret and Gorina both have or will have Granaries(one of your criteria ;) ), and provide our best chances of accomplishing this.

@DZ - Yes, as there has been no evidence of any naturally occuring barbarians over the entire area that we have explored there is virtually no chance that we will encounter barbarians in this game (except from more goody huts, in the unlikely chance that we find another one).

We can send out our Settlers to the west undefended but the DP needs to watch them carefully moving it 1 tile per turn or so, to make sure it doesn't run into a barb, though it seems the record shows that the barbs are non-existant.

BTW: after I fail ( :( can't be to optimistic about it) my Goverment final I shall be no longer bogged down by college duties and should become more active in the DG again, at least till the end of Augest.

EDIT: just noting I no longer think I totally failed the test ;) didn't get an A, but....

Lets expand as fast as possible eastward and then move west when we have filled ALL tiles to the east. There is no hurry going west..