NOW'S the thread you've all been waiting for! ;) The people have voted for the 2nd option in the recent poll, so here's the city layout. The next task is to decide which cities should take first priority

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/DG3_BC0775_expand_priority.jpg

Here is one with city "names" for discussion.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/DG3_BC0775_expand_priority2.jpg

You should add a city on the Forest just west of the word "South" by South Cresent. And one on the Hill (or the grassland) east of Wine Forrest.

These cities won't steal anything from the other cities, if they just take Coastal Tiles.

There are some similar places where the same method could be applied to add more cities with the same function, but I won't mention those ;)

Anyway... that's the DG threadjack of the month for me :p

Here's my list - which attempts to block out Egypt first:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/DG3_BC0775_Prioritylist.jpg


Oh, and GF - those tiles will be used. I just didn't want to clutter up the map TOO much and confuse everyone. ;)

Nice work Chieftess! Quality map.

Call me pessimistic, but I don't think we'll get cities The Fog, Port Gallop, Southern Dyes, Eastern port and Skating rink if we try to get them as city numbers 9, 11, 18, 19, 24. Even if we prioritise them we might not even get them. The peninsula with those planned cities on it might not be a peninsula, but connected to Eastern Egyptus or Aztecus and also Western Egypt might pass us through our own new cities and settle there first. It's a nice plan, but I fear a bit too optimistic.

I also don't like the priority 3 of the yet nameless city. I don't see it as doing us a lot of good and establishing a proper Eastern border is higher on my priority lists. The same goes for city 4; wine forest. "Lake Asphinxia" ïs higher on my list, so are "The Fog" and "port Gallop" and "Northern Iron".

My idea is: Get a good Eastern border, than go West to get the best, if not all, lands there and after that start filling holes.

We have already built cities up to #5.

I saw your turn 5 post after my post here. It seems I was too late for this.

Can you tell me why these cities were on the priority list as 3 and 4? I am probably missing the strategic/long term reason and I am eager to learn.

City 3 connected us to the iron. City 4 gives us another grassland city that can churn out workers and settlers, and actually grow.

I've looked at save 570 BC. I see the Iron-reason for city 3. I also see the importance for city 4, but I don't see why city 4 is more important to us now than using the settler for establishing our eastern border. After all it is a city far from a river with a shortage of workers not quickly irrigated and not having a big impact in either obstructing our opponents, or gainign an immediate benefit (luxury, quick growth or strategic resource).

Probably a matter of "preferred play-style".

Let's finish with a compliment; although I don't agree with some city locations, the turns are well played.

Our eastern border is almost complete. There's another settler headed for the lake, and will be there within a few turns.

I recommend replacing the sequence 7,8,9,10,11 with 9,8,11,10,7. Or put another way

7=9 the fog
8=8 north port
9=11 port gallop
10=10 the valley
11=7 unnamed SW of Gorina

We will not be able to effectively 'block' Egypt without a strong military, as they will eventually just declare war on us. I had attempted to designate Noshuret as a military training ground, particularly once the more expensive legions come into play, but the domestic department seems to have overridden this and continues to produce settlers in the one city we have capable of producing veteran legions at a reasonable rate.

We currently have several Legions that can replace the warriors to the north. They should provide an ample barrier.

Your plan looks good to me, CT.

War has been declared! Our plans have just changed.