We need to discuss further settlement opportunities in the surrounding area. I am on a business trip and don't have as much capability as usual to post screenshots, so I invite any citizens who might have ideas on where the next 2-5 cities should be built to submit their proposals. Hopefully I'll become less civ-challenged prior to the end of the trip and can put my ideas forward as well.

I've made a map of the area surrounding the Capital City. I'm thinking you have already decided to place a city on the tile marked with a 1, so I've placed that and did 5 more. I think we should stay close with these next 5 cities, as we spent a lot of turns so far and only have 2 cities. What do you think of these locations?

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DGIV2430bcmap1.jpg

I'd like to see five a bit closer to the capital...

I agree with 1, 2 and 3.

4 and 6 are probably good, but I'd like to know more tiles to decide.

1,2 3 looking good, as far as our surrounding land can look good ;)
Would like to see more tiles around 4, but I reckon it might be a good site. The whole area between 4 and 5 (dark squares) looks interesting too, but I have a feeling there is much desert to be found there as well
6 will take some time to develop, and we will be needing a lot of workers for changing the jungle area....

At present we can get by with 2 sites chosen, as it will be beyond the current chat before we get to the 2nd one. A view of some resources would be nice before we commit to the OCP build (optimum city placement, which aims for 21 tiles per city). We don't want to be in a position where we need to expand cultural borders to get a resource if we can avoid it. Production will be slow until a lot of improvements are done.

Site 1 was the 2nd place from the previous poll (discounting the one which is too close to the existing town of Vandelay). Site 2 is the obvious next move after that, for dyes, although building closer on that side (1NE of the marker) would reduce the number of worker turns required to get them hooked up.

I'm hoping our intrepid explorers will have more to report before any additional sites need to be locked down.

Locations 1 and 2 looks good to me. Location 1 is better since its close to a cattle tile which will aid us in the settler/worker production

Originally posted by DaveShack
[B]Site 2 is the obvious next move after that, for dyes, although building closer on that side (1NE of the marker) would reduce the number of worker turns required to get them hooked up.[B]

I have to disagree with that statement, DS. (Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement.) The worker should build road to the Lux. It would then automatically hook up to the city, whether it was located on the 2, or 1 tile to the NE. I'm thinking because there's Grass under that Jungle, the 2 spot would be better overall.

Originally posted by Cyc

I'm thinking because there's Grass under that Jungle, the 2 spot would be better overall.

I'm on a laptop screen, so vaguely know it's green but not what shade... ;)

In view of the barbarians in the south it seems risky to head for those dyes without proper escort. Since Vandelay is recruiting a warrior I think it could explore west and site #5 (or thereabouts) would prove to be a good spot for city number 4.

Site 3 looks good for city #3.

2,4,5 and 6 are too risky for site #3. If we move in a straight line (regretfully an unescorted settler, unless the military department allows us to use the MP as escort) we can get to location 1 fairly safely. The Russian warrior can protect us from barbs.

In due time the North-western warrior can be freed to escorting duty; after he's finished fog-lifting.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
2,4,5 and 6 are too risky for site #3. If we move in a straight line (regretfully an unescorted settler, unless the military department allows us to use the MP as escort) we can get to location 1 fairly safely. The Russian warrior can protect us from barbs.

In due time the North-western warrior can be freed to escorting duty; after he's finished fog-lifting.

Hmm, I can have the warrior that is going to be finished soon and have that one escourt the settler to the location.

When you're stuck in the jungle, do a tight build. Haven't you learned *ANYTHING* from watching Apolyton? ;) In their demogame and MSDG, they did a tight build because they were in the jungle. Those cities aren't going anywhere fast, and you won't have those jungles cleared until the late middle ages at the earlier (more likely, mid-industrial considering the usual demogame worker load...). Build them tighter. OCP builds don't work well in jungle. (more roads/jungle to build and chop, so things take MUCH longer).

Good points CT. However, we could settle the jungle later and with all those floodplains we may be able to recruit more workers than ususal for a demogame.

Plus we're only hampered by the Jungle in one direction, to the South. If we were totally in the Jungle like yer Poly friends, it would be different. We'll only have to clear for two cities, and as donsig says, workers won't be a problem. We don't want to hamper the growth of the Capital if we can help it. A tight build will do this. We only have to place two cities there, so let's look to the future, not for immdiate gain.

I would like to propose concentrating on the good land first and worrying about the not so good land close to home later. We can settle the jungle to the south anytime, our rivals will only try to go there after their good land is already settled.

So far this means we need to concentrate on the green pastures between us and Russia.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC2150_promised_land.jpg

Edit:

Using the grab the best land first plan, I would like to propose making this site our highest settlement priority. If there are no major arguments against it, I plan to use this site in the instructions for tomorrow's turnchat. Of course if there is disagreement then a quick poll will be in order...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_2150BC_nextcity.jpg

That's a valid point, DS, but I think we need to hook up those dyes, now. I would also like to to see us cut off travel around our Captial by sealing the the NE and the SW.

I must add that we have no Iron close. That is another reason to go in the direction DS suggests.

I am going to kick my computer for giving us such a lousy position.

Originally posted by Cyc
That's a valid point, DS, but I think we need to hook up those dyes, now. I would also like to to see us cut off travel around our Captial by sealing the the NE and the SW.

Perhaps a colony for the dyes is in order. We should reserve our settlers for prime city locations.

Originally posted by DaveShack
[B]So far this means we need to concentrate on the green pastures between us and Russia.

Very neat, DS. We do need to get away from the sterile jungle. We have to get a good base before we decide to terraform that jungle. The big grassland plains to the east will be perfect for that.

Settle it fast and for all, that's what I say. If we let Russia take that land, we may have big problems trying to get back into the race after.

We have 3 posts in favor of the green pastures, and one in favor of getting the dyes first. Cyc, while your plan has merit and the locations SE and SW of the capitol are important to create a closed border as a deterrent to infiltration by our neighbors, there is currently stronger support for the other plan.

I'll be happy to poll it if you want, though there isn't much time. Either way please post your feelings on whether we should proceed with a poll or follow the preponderence of support in the thread for either plan, as early after you see this as possible... ;)

Considering the location of the Iron I think that we need to get out to those green pastures. This will also give us a city with production potential to assist in our future efforts. We will need a temple however to expand over the Wines.

That makes it 4 in favour of the green pastures, 1 in favour of the dyes.

1 - NO colonies!! We need the workers for our settler/worker factories! (provided we have them).

2 - Send our workers 2 by 2 to build roads. (2 workers each for a road in 1 turn).

3 - I suggest we build a road out towards the iron (which should be a 3rd to 3rd and a half ring city). Here's a screenshot:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC2150_IronLake.jpg
Or, "Password: Ironfish" :p

White Tile - This is the iron spot. I would *NOT* suggest building here and trying the warrior to sword gambit. It worked in DG2 because the iron was close enough, and it was still early in the game. We're almost at the year 2000 BC, and by the time we settle there, it could be 1500BC, or even 1000BC. I think this game is going to HAVE to be a peaceful landgrab situation first...

Blue Tiles - These tile are next to rivers, and would get the iron within 1 turn (provided we had ample workers...). The downside is that we don't know the terrain around it, plus, it's also further away from our capital than other locations... It also borders the jungle, and there's a chance the Russia could occupy one of those spots.

Red tiles - These require a cultural improvement to get the iron. Slow yes, but we're not gonna be going to war anytime soon in our situation. The east red tiles are the worse, since they're in jungle. The tile by the lake is good, but doesn't have as many hills for future growth (it's quite possible that our FP could be very close to this city someday).

Yellow Tile - This is my perferred tile. This spot gets atleast 5 hills and 3 mountains, plus a bonus grassland tile (and jungle that can be irragated later), and what looks like might be 7 grassland tiles (+14 food in the industrial era). Remember that you also need a purposeful deficit of 2 to even out the city at size 21. The oddball hill REQUIRES that we use that fish. I also think that it's this spot that we can nab before the Russians do, and only IF we expand correctly.

There's also a spot 4 tiles SW of that wine in the picture (with numerous bonus grassland tiles) that looks like a good city spot.

Originally posted by Chieftess
1 - NO colonies!! We need the workers for our settler/worker factories! (provided we have them).


If we do have a worker factory it makes sense to use one of the workers to build a road through to the dyes and build a colony. Send a warrior with the worker and we will not have to waste a settler building a city in the jungle just to get the dyes we need. The worker will cost 10 shields and 1 pop point where-as the settler will cost 30 shields and 2 pop points.

Problem is, the AI is likely to decide to send a settler...

I would have to agree with chieftess on this. We need to get connected to that Iron ASAP.

BTW, for future reference, here's an estimation of the corruption rings: Corruption "Rings" (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_2150BC_corruption_rings.jpg).

You'll see that the proposed city will be in the 3rd to 4th corruption ring (which really kicks in after the OCN is reached). Sure, we could say, "Yeah, the Russians are going to get that spot anyway", but from the looks of it, Russia has just as bad land as we do. Also, I recall an early GOTM where the only resource (iron) was on the other side of the landmass (about the same number of tiles away as our iron resource was). The idea was to get a city over there as quickly as possible (and possibly build outside-in). It's a stretch, but we can fit a few cities between the iron and Vo Mimbe.

Here's the alternatives:

North - desert, plains and sea.
West - Desert and floodplains.
South - Jungle and Babylon.
East - desert.
Southeast - Grassland!!!

Let the AI settle in the desert if they have to. We can take those unproductive cities later.

As far as resources are concerned... I just don't understand what our seemingly drunken obsession with wines is. :p (pun intended) But, as long as we keep cities at size 3 and lower (with MP), happiness is managable. At size 4, sure we'll need to raise the luxury rate. But, at the moment, we're concentrating on expansion. We need a worker plan to build roads for our settlers. This accomplishes if not one thing and one thing only - quicker expansion. It gets us a city atleast 3 turns quicker than with no roads. Roads are the rails of the ancient era. :)

BTW, it's not just getting the iron first (we're really in no shape yet to have a productive army), it's about denying Russia that resource. What we DO need is a few good cities in the east that can be a size 6 city and spit out swords every 3 turns or so.

Hopefully the mountains still under fog will hold iron closer to us than the one to the extreme southeast, but we want to play keep away with the one to the SE anyway. An outside in settlement strategy in this case starts to sound good because at this point we basically have to start walking in the direction of the only iron we know about, and hope we get to it first.

Originally posted by DaveShack
We have 3 posts in favor of the green pastures, and one in favor of getting the dyes first. Cyc, while your plan has merit and the locations SE and SW of the capitol are important to create a closed border as a deterrent to infiltration by our neighbors, there is currently stronger support for the other plan.

I'll be happy to poll it if you want, though there isn't much time. Either way please post your feelings on whether we should proceed with a poll or follow the preponderence of support in the thread for either plan, as early after you see this as possible... ;)

Hey DS, do what you want. :D I was just covering yer butt, cause you were out of town and asked for help. I counted four people that liked the locations on my map. I don't know where you guys get one from. If you don't want help, DS, don't ask for it. :)

Originally posted by Cyc


Hey DS, do what you want. :D I was just covering yer butt, cause you were out of town and asked for help. I counted four people that liked the locations on my map. I don't know where you guys get one from. If you don't want help, DS, don't ask for it. :)

Your help was very much appreciated, and I liked the locations on your map too, before our intrepid explorers discovered much better land off to the SE. :D I'm certain we will want to use your very well-designed plan for infill close to the capitol, once we have the distant and better land cordoned off. :cool:

Of course Chieftess comes along and trumps us both with an idea to go way out there and get the iron first... :lol:

I think 2 tiles north of the yellow or N-NW of yellow can be better. I am not IFOS, so I have to work with CT's picture.

I think moving a warrior/settler pair there will show enough to know whether to settle there or continue to the yellow. My hunch is that that city is very close to sea and lake and is nearly perfect as blockade as well.

2 - Send our workers 2 by 2 to build roads. (2 workers each for a road in 1 turn). Only native workers will accomplish this. Foreigners are lazy and won't accomplish the task in 2 turns.

I think Vandelay needs to go on as a worker factory, Deux Rivières in fulll settler mode and Vo Mimbre in warrior or spearmen mode.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC2150_IronLake.jpg

I'd much rather build on that lake (the yellow spot). It gives us the most amount of production when it gets into the industrial era. (who knows if that location might become a future palace). I much rather build on a lake that gets us above size 6 without an aquaduct... Also, looking at the mountains and jungle, who knows if we'll have coal there in the future?

Good points by Chieftess. We should look to settle those sites with the best potential first. I might go ahead and contradict myself in this thread - but from the analyzis Chieftess has done here, I support yellow :)

I support yellow too, fish when it expands, and bonus grassland next to it. Hills for good shields in the middle ages, and mountains with a bit of potential as well.

A poll has been created here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76864) for this issue.

Now we know a great deal about the grasslands surrounding the only visible source of Iron. I support the yellow location from Chieftess's map, because it puts a lot of hills, mountains, and jungle in the city radius. This is a potential Iron Works location, if the RNG blessed us with coal in that same mountain range.

Here is a map showing one possible city arrangement. The yellow and dark blue sites are clearly higher priority than the cyan and red, which might wait until after some settlement in another direction. OTOH it is good to fill in our borders along the road because that eliminates the chance an AI will plop a town down on our trade route.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1575_settleloc.jpg

I agree with the Yellow location.

Securing the wines sounds like a good idea. But we also need to expand in other directions as well, especially west of our capitol city. We need our core cities set up soon.

We could also build a city 2 tiles SW of that desert mountain (the one SE of the barb). Let's call it, "Barbarian Mountain" at some point into the far future to block the desert for ourselves. Also, a city on that river by the plains and forest NE of the wines and iron looks like a good spot, including 5 tiles SW of the Iron City (so as not to waste any tiles). Yes, the desert city won't be livable until the industrial era, but it will give us some sort of outpost out there.

It's quite possible that we could be building "rings" for our Forbidden Palace.

Yellow and Blue are good, but I would be tempted to move Cyan 1 tile SE (it’ll be off the bonus grassland then) and Red 1 S. I would also put another one somewhere NE ish of Blue and Yellow – ie: somewhere in the Green location – not sure of the exact position though. I would put Green as higher priority than Red as hopefully we could position it so that it formed a border with Yellow and Cyan claiming the grassland.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/settlement-cab1.jpg

It looks like it’s going to be more of an outside in strategy – but as donsig says we do need to think about other directions as well – we desperately need more Settlers.

You do get the bonus grassland effect after size 6. I did an experiment on this once. If you build on a +1 shield tile (ANY tile, not just bonus grassland. That is, hills, plains...), you get +1 shield later on.). A metro will get +4 shields in the capital square when it's on a bonus tile, hill, plains compared to +3 for normal grassland. It's one of those wierd things.

Well you learn something new everyday - I always thought those bonuses were lost.

Here's my suggestion: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1575_CTcitysites.jpg

(not shown is a city spot 2 north of Vandelay, on the coast)


@Furiely - yes and no. Food is lost. Gold isn't lost. Shields are temporarily lost until the city reaches size 6. Industrial civs get an extra shield after becoming a metro.

A poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77341) has been created for the first 2 locations.

There was quite a bit of discussion in the poll about maybe placing the 2nd new city on the dyes instead of the wines. Accordingly the will of the people will be interpreted to mean that the iron city is just barely OK and that further discussion on the city after that is desired.

I will try to draw up a proposal which takes into account the comments from the poll thread. In the meantime everyone (and especially opponents of the plan just polled) is invited to submit their proposals. :)

Originally posted by DaveShack
[B]There was quite a bit of discussion in the poll about maybe placing the 2nd new city on the dyes instead of the wines. Accordingly the will of the people will be interpreted to mean that the iron city is just barely OK and that further discussion on the city after that is desired.

:hmm:I see only one comment in that poll thread that mentions the Dyes, DS. If your referring to my post, I gave locations to your colored dots that I thought were better. Are you talking about some other poll thread? I'm talking about the poll you linked to a couple of posts up.

Well, make that "some" discussion on settling the dyes first before the wines... :crazyeye:

Seriously though, suggestions are indeed welcome, and I do plan to make a new map adjusted for comments seen in the poll thread. It won't be right away though, because I have to write the material for a class on Tuesday and teach that class on Wednesday.

While posting instructions it became apparent we have to decide the 1st 2 locations immediately (settler due in 3) so will go with the wine city as originally specified in the poll. Yet another settler will be ready in about 10 turns, so we need options right away.

There's also another settler near the iron. So, that makes 3 spots. And you only have 9 1/2 hours to post instructions...

Looking longer term, we have a chance to block the babs from coming farther north by either founding one or two cities, or blocking with a line of warrior.

I don't like the latter approach - it just won't work as they build cities on the way up.

With a pair of settlers though, we could block them pretty nicely. Bad part - almost pure jungle - those cities would be a pain until we get large scale work-crews there. Good part - no Babs on Northern Fanatica! Also, it gives us a buffer between the Babs and our capital.

EDIT: After a closer look, I think we could do it with one settler (just north of the dyes) and a pair of warrior to block the outer edges.

-- Ravensfire

Minister DaveShack returns to the office after being held hostage for a couple of days by two barbarian tribes known as the "testers" and the "managers". To his dismay, he finds that the citizens have ignored the grand plan for settling the land, and have instead been discussing proposals for deciding which governor will be responsible for which future cities. Figures, we're trying to grab some land, and here people are talking about politics again.

Our weary and frustrated planner looks around the room. "Now where did I put those drawings..."

:hmm: Cyc watches as Minister DaveShack starts to plow through maps and charts on his desk. The IA Minister occasionally stands upright, glances in the corner, scratches his head and returns to the papers on his desk.

"Excuse me, DS. I believe I've already contributed a map of possible locations for city placement," says Cyc who nods towards the second page of this thread. "And I believe you can find other locations in the last poll you ran for this purpose." :D

I think we need to get the dyes now (we won’t have to worry about happiness so much then) either with Cyc’s site 2 or possibly one tile north-east of that (blue dot below). One tile north-east would still get the dyes immediately, require road on one less tile to reach and still be on the coast, but would overlap a bit more with Deux Rivières. We could reach the site by roading the grassland south of Deux Rivières, then one tile West. This would leave the workers in position to road the dyes then head further south to reach a city site to block the Babylonians (yellow). The white sites could then be filled in as we have the Settlers available.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/BC1300settlements.jpg

I really don't like yellow (south). It's going to lose 2 food (maybe 3) to the coast, since we can't build a harbor there. Same goes for white in the east-jungle. I want to uncover that fog.

Hi Chieftess, Furiey, what tool are you using that shades the squares already in our control & those for possible city sites?

Originally posted by DaveShack
Hi Chieftess, Furiey, what tool are you using that shades the squares already in our control & those for possible city sites?

I use Paint Shop Pro 7 (Adobe Photoshop can do the same thing, too).

What you do is this:

1 - Create a new image.
2 - Delete the background layer (it'll show as a checkered box).
3 - Add a new layer (must have 16.7 million colors on).
4 - Select the new layer.
5 - Draw an image (any will do).
6 - Go to that layer, and select properties.
7 - Under transparency, select 50%. That makes it so that you can see through the image.

Adobe Photoshop for me, also Microsoft Photodraw (comes with Office) will do the same thing. Think I used less than 50% transparency though. Saw Chieftess's and liked it so had a go myself.

As far as the sites - I don't particularly like Yellow either, was just trying to block the Babs with only one city - I originally had two across there which also potentially gave a canal across the landbridge, but as we can now see that it's only into a lake that's not so important now. White sites are there for illustration to show how they could fit in - uncovering the fog could well change it.

Originally posted by Furiey
I think we need to get the dyes now (we won’t have to worry about happiness so much then) either with Cyc’s site 2 or possibly one tile north-east of that (blue dot below). One tile north-east would still get the dyes immediately, require road on one less tile to reach and still be on the coast, but would overlap a bit more with Deux Rivières.

DaveShack had the same thought, Furiey. But the truth of the matter is, we only road to the Dye. We don't road to the city. With the city being on my original site #2, we road to the Dye and the road automatically hooks up to the city. It's placement 1 tile to the NE won't change this, but it will crowd the Capital City. Why would we want to crowd the Capital needlessly.

We could reach the site by roading the grassland south of Deux Rivières, then one tile West. This would leave the workers in position to road the dyes then head further south to reach a city site to block the Babylonians (yellow).

We have already roaded two tilesout from the Capital city towards the Dyes. Roading South to the grasslands will waste the time spent already. If we just continue the existing road, hooking up the Dyes will be a lot quicker. Roading to other Southern cities can be done from the Southern most mine road by the grassland you speak of. So basically, I think site #2 (mine) is better than the blue dot fo those reasons. :)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/BC1300settlements.jpg [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry Cyc - I can only see the road in that direction on the wheat and the bonus grassland ie: one out from the city. Are you sure the workers actually finished the road 2 out and weren't interruped by the barbarians? I checked both with the Sn00py graphics I usually use and the standard graphics and can't see a road 2 out.

Originally posted by Furiey
Sorry Cyc - I can only see the road in that direction on the wheat and the bonus grassland ie: one out from the city. Are you sure the workers actually finished the road 2 out and weren't interruped by the barbarians? I checked both with the Sn00py graphics I usually use and the standard graphics and can't see a road 2 out.

(show smiley of me slapping my head) You're right Furiey. We had a Settler there in the 1575 save and I assumed that we completed that road as planned. I don't know why we didn't, it may have been because of Barbs. Sorry. (see below)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/siteposs.jpg

OK, I'll take back that reason, I was wrong. :D

I would like to hear suggestions for our next city site.

Here are several sites which have been gleaned from previous discussion and adjusted for new terrain knowledge and to fit better with the cities we have already placed.

This one has popular appeal because it helps us connect the iron without having to build a temple or use up a worker on building a colony.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1025_city_fareast.jpg


This map shows several options to the south of our capitol. Building this direction helps push away the Babylonians, though these cities may not be productive for a thousand years or more

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1025_city_south.jpg

This map shows one way of filling in the green pastures around Groton and Montpellier.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1025_city_east.jpg
Finally, here is an option to try to deny resources to the Russians. I in this picture is the same as A, but moved one tile SE, and J corresopnds to B.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1025_city_southeast.jpg

For spot "H", I think 1 tile NW would be better, since we won't waste a tile. Also, I think we need to plan those cities better, since it could be our future FP site, or somewhere near there. (I say FP, since we may have to move our palace at some point).

A poll has been created here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78474)

Originally posted by Chieftess
For spot "H", I think 1 tile NW would be better, since we won't waste a tile. Also, I think we need to plan those cities better, since it could be our future FP site, or somewhere near there. (I say FP, since we may have to move our palace at some point).

I looked at that, and thought the hill for defense would be better. Some of the other "misplacements" are to get direct fresh water with minimum disruption.

The lake NE of Montpellier messes things up, because it crowds C no matter where we try to put it. Looking back on it, I and J are a better version of A and B respectively. K is for resource denial, and again the best tile is not available -- the iron itself is the right place to build, but alas its on a mountain.

My personal preference is somewhat tighter than OCP but not as tight as ICS. Normally 12 tiles is enough unless you're planning on stretching the game out until the modern age. With this start, we can't afford to toy with it, we have to press hard right from the start. If it lasts that long, we're probably in trouble of some kind.

Just my 2 gold, and best effort interpretation of what people have been saying...

yeah, I like a tight city placement, but I know how much the majority in the demogame hate that strategy. (All the way back to DG1, Term 1 -- Just look at GreyFox's presidential thread).

Some of these sites are getting pretty close to existing Russian and Babylonian territory. The Russians I'm not particularly worried about, but the Babs...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/proximity.jpg

Site K is only a distance of 9 from the Babylonian capitol. If we settle here it will susceptible to flipping and I think increase the likelihood of conflict with the Babs. This will become our closest point with them - we will not be able to rely on the jungle slowing any potential invasion force, they will just be able to wander right up to our borders!

Babylon is growing toward our southern borders, through the jungle. To fend them off from our current capitol, we need to consider settling towards them.

Here is a map of proposed sites to the south for your discussion.


S1 is moved 1SW of its natural optimimum placement to allow it to be on the river, and therefore save shields on an aqueduct. S2 and S3 are as close as we can get to the Babylonian town. These alignments will leave 5 jungle tiles unusable.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC775_citysouth.jpg

Originally posted by DaveShack
[edit]
S1 is moved 1SW of its natural optimimum placement to allow it to be on the river, and therefore save shields on an aqueduct.IMHO S1 should not be moved (or should be moved 1 tile NE from the current picture. Reasoning: otherwise we leave extremely valuable land near our capital unused
the jungle will prevent fast grow to >6 anyhow
once we have 6 mined tiles, we have ample production with very little corruption to build an aqueduct extremely fast
I would now NOT NOT NOT build mor than this one additional city towards Babylon. Let them clear the jungle for us. In the unavoidable war, we will capture their cities.

In this screenshot I suggest some alternate locations for new cities, which IMHO are really worth going for.

Note that blue, green and light blue are at distance 5, the same as Vandelay and Huntington.
Black, white and orange are at distance 9.

I would strongly favor black as a gateway to the wines.
Blue is enough to protect us against Babylon.
Orange will be very usefull with a harbor in the future.
White will be productive and a valuable northern navy base.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/tao_dg4_1.jpg

PS: I would be willing to serve as Mayor of black.

looks good Tao.

I generally like tao’s arrangement.

Blue – uses the good ground next to the capitol – I think we can lose one tile to coast for that.

Orange – I think will be useful strategically in the future – if we can settle early enough to get our culture to expand over the land mass over the sea, it may give us a landing area for our troops in the future.

I would move Black and White a little though:
White I would move one SE, Black I would move E out to the coast. I think that this arrangement would make better use of the land/coast – we can always fill in the desert with another city (purple) later. These moves still keep Black and White at a distance of 9 from the capitol.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC775_Settlement_Fur1.jpg

I think we should review our settlement of site K in the east though. It will be next to a Babylonian City whose borders have already grown indicating culture and only 9 from the Babylonian capitol. We will not be denying Russia iron by building here as we have now found other iron in their territory. We would be better off positioning the Settler that was going there in one of the other sites in that area either A/I or B/J. Why build a city we will be unlikely to keep when we have so many other sites to settle?

Originally posted by Furiey
I would move Black and White a little though:
White I would move one SE, Black I would move E out to the coast. I think that this arrangement would make better use of the land/coast – we can always fill in the desert with another city (purple) later. I looked at your proposal in my Photoshop version of the placement map and see your argument. However I still strongly prefer the sites as proposed by me:[list=1]
black has tremendeous food because of the floodplains and the wheat; what it needs are shields and these come from the mountain
because of high food low shields, the postion not requiring an aqueduct gets my preference
white could be at either location, but if black is founded as proposed by me, it should not be moved SE
expect the other locations suggested by you to be occupied soon by "yellow" settlements, I'm afraid
[/list=1]

Originally posted by tao
4. expect the other locations suggested by you to be occupied soon by "yellow" settlements, I'm afraid
I cetainly agree there! It's just that my Photoshop version is covered with potential sites and I hadn't switched off those layers!

As for the food/shields issue, my black site would still have a good few floodplains and some mines on the plains would do the job for the shields. It'll be a while before we're ready to grow the city beyond 6, so I'm not too worried about having to build the Aquaduct. The position of the white site as you say depends on the black.

edit: just to add that the purple site and the white site N of Orange, NW of Green are both also at a distance of 9 completing the ring over that side.

There have been some suggestions to divert settler K to a different site, for three main reasons:

[list=1]
It is so close to Babylon that it is a flip risk
It doesn't deny iron to Russia because there is another source
It will be highly corrupt and there are better, less corrupt sites available.
[/list=1]

There is still one good possible reason to build on K, and that is if it denies iron to Babylon. We could still build there, and start on a temple for local culture. If a FP is build in Groton as previously suggested, then K becomes a 2nd ring city for the FP and would have a chance to be productive.

Discussion please, on diverting the people heading for K to either I or J.

Also there have been several maps proposed, but not a whole lot of discussion on exactly which site should be the top priority. I'd like to have some opinions before tossing out a poll, which would have to go up in 4 hours in order to be available 24 hours before the next scheduled chat.

We are in a bad situation due to the "Demogame Factor". The obviously best action would be to[list=1] make map trades to know whether the AIs have iron and/or horses in their territory which is just not connected, and
based on this intelligence make the decision on the settlement location.
[/list=1] AFAIK this is not possible within the rules.

Thus I advocate J, because[list=1] it may deny horses to Russia
with a large stack of horsemen we could capture any future Russian city in the case that we loose our iron before we build swords
being on a hill, it is better defendable vs. barbs and future enemies.
[/list=1]
PS: As I argued before (several times actually) Groton should be switched to barracks immediately (which are overdone already) and build a worker next to mine the bonus grasland and afterwards connect the iron.

You’re right Dave – it’s too easy to get carried away with the Grand Plan and forget that we have to decide where the Settler is to go for the next turnchat. I think we need to get our core cities settled now which would bring it down to blue, green or cyan proposed by tao and myself. Blue would put a city between our capitol and the Babs, however it’s only got one good tile that’s not jungle and we need production. This leaves cyan and green. I think I would go for green first although like Vo Mimbre it will need irrigation on the plains to grow, then mines to balance the population at the right level. It should then produce troops well.


As for diverting the settler – denying Babylon Iron is the only reason not to as far as I can see. So do the Babs have Iron or not? Well it’s not listed as a tradeable resource for them, but they may not have connected it up yet. But consider AI behaviour in settling cities – the AI knows where the resources are and will settle near them. The Babs have settled several cities since they discovered Iron Working, one of which is very near to site K, but not close enough to claim the iron. If this was potentially their only source of iron I would have expected them to have already settled near it. I therefore believe that the Babs have Iron elsewhere and we should divert the Settler. Of the 2 potential sites you mention – site I would better consolidate our position, J would deny horses to the Russians but string out our territory still further. If we want to go for J, now is the time to do it as I don’t think we’ll have the option soon.

Blue is vital to protect our core vs barbarians (and Babylonians) from the south. But black, orange, green and light blue are just as important.

If we build some horsemen, attacks from the NW can easier be detered, especially because the mountains give our units greater visual range. Thus I would build blue first, but not lightheartedly.

Why oh why don't we have granaries yet ...

I would like to express my opinion on this matter again. :)

First off, I think it would be a very bad idea to trash the last (existing poll on City Location. The people have spoken, the IA Minister has given us our best options, the deed is done. If would make us look a lot worse if we changed directions now, trashed a poll, and said sorry, we don't know what we're doing....

Second, way back when in the begining of time, I proposed locations just like Furiey and Tao. In Tao's proposal, I would have moved both Black and White 1 tile to the SE. Those would have been perfect locations. Furiey has moved White to that location, but moved black 1 tile East. This will work, too I suppose.

Third, for our next City Location, I would choose Green, then Black or White. Green is close enough and potent enough to do us some good immediately.

Originally posted by Cyc

First off, I think it would be a very bad idea to trash the last (existing poll on City Location. The people have spoken, the IA Minister has given us our best options, the deed is done. If would make us look a lot worse if we changed directions now, trashed a poll, and said sorry, we don't know what we're doing....


Well, it wouldn't be done by trashing the poll, it would be done by having another poll to see if the people want to change direction. There is no reason to consider every poll final, the people can always change directions via another poll. :D

Failing to bring up the topic for discussion, at least, once it has been raised would be even worse IMHO, because it would show an unwillingness to listen to advice. Advice has been given toward both sides of the question, and it is certainly not overwhelming toward either side.

Don't get me wrong, DS. I'm glad you brought up the issue. How else would I have been able to voice my opinion about it. :D

I just feel that there's not enough time to discuss new options before the next t/c, the People have already spoken, and we're going to have to change the opinion of the (almost) entire nation about sensibility of expanding to the East instead of building up our Core cities. The last one will take a cattle prod, at least, to get accomplished.

As for questioning the settling of site K - if nothing had changed I would not have done it, and of DaveShack's reasons for not settling there, 1 and 3 have not changed in themselves. What has changed is reason 2 - we believed we were denying a significant strategic resource to the Russians which outweighed any disadvantages the site may have had. We now have more information and know that this is not the case, which removes what I believe to be the primary reason for choosing the site in the first place. In the light of this new information I prefer to raise the question and give people the opportunity to re-examine the decision rather than carry on regardless.

Cyc - Yes some of these sites are the same as you originally proposed before we got diverted to settling the land to the west - I have been developing my map for a long time!

With the new poll...

I saw letter J is the first priority. Mûre is alone and at risk of being cut off by the Babylonians. (Placing it there to cut off Babylon from iron was quite a gambit; hope it pays off for us.) Looking at the current map, Babylon has nowhere left to expand but towards us. I'm no expert on how the AI evaluates settling, but my guess is that they will settle past Mûre rather than take the jungle. With that in mind, letter I is my next suggestion. However, I doubt that we will get two cities in before the Babylonians make their next placement. Only after solidifying our claim in the east should we fill out the better locations in the north, like the black and white locations.

Also... although I wouldn't consider it quite yet, and it isn't even in the poll, the floodplain north of Groton also looks inviting for a future settlement.

I wish to propose a new proposal for the settler locations for the Audiac Province. I beleve that if we settle close to the rivers that we dont have to build aqueducts in the future. Also another plus is that they can serve as settler/worker factories.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_Settler_Plots.JPG

I like how you took advantage of the riversl. Plus, with one desert city in the void, we will have all the territory locked up.

I am not very happy with parts of the new proposal. On first sight, it looks o.k., but if you include the existing cities, the situation in the west (yellow) looks quire different:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_Settler_Plots_2.jpg
We have a tremendeous overlap with St. Octaviansburg and the new orange location. Thus the new yellow site at the coast is IMHO not to be settled.

The light yellow site in the NW should be moved 1 tile NE to get a better mix of food and production.

The new red site is fine.

The northern red site should be moved 1 to the west. That way, we can fit a city 1 SW of the elite warrior, without losing any tiles.

As tao says - it looks quite different once you include settled and about to be settled sites - Orange and Black (Blue on CG's map).

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC410_Settlement_CAB.jpg

Like tao I have moved the light yellow site, only I've moved it North which also puts it on the coast.

Like CT I have moved the Red site West for better spacing.

Like tao I think the CG's yellow site is too close to Orange and St. Octaviansburg, so have moved it North to the hill although it could also go one further NE onto the desert. This does take it away from the river, so it will need an Aqueduct though.

Like CT I have added another city Blue between Red and Yellow, although not quite where CT suggested.

Magenta I have moved to the Cyan position that was included in the last poll. This moves it away from the river, but gives access to some floodplain and keeps it on the same ring as St Octaviansburg, Huntington etc.

Purple could eventually be slotted in if we wanted to fill up the last desert squares.