Progress:

*Worker begins mine on NW grassland

* Warrior heads NW from Fanatzuma to NW grassland(same one)

*Northeast Warrior discovers Forest, little else. A new continent seems to be taking shape.

* Lux Slider stays at 10%. Fanatazuma has one happy/1unhappy citizen.

* Production started on Settler. Schedule says 10 turns, but we will really get it in 8. We just have to switch to forest on the 6th turn of production. Let me do the math.

First 5 turns

3shields/pt x 5 = 15
3 food/pt X 5 = 15

Last 3 turns

5 shields/pt x 3 = 15
2 food/pt X 3 = 6

So after 8 turns, we will have 30 shields for the Settler just as Fanatazuma would grow to Size 3. We only waste 1 food doing this. :)

Here's the screenie. Please post your questions and concerns.

Should this new settler build a city 1 square SE of the backy?

I have a concern. Why don't we have Stealth yet? We are falling behind.

On a serious note, where is the settler going?

I think we'll have to wait to decide where our second city will come. I'm always in favor of placing cities as much as possible towards the opponents. Cities of them in our backland are of little use for them. Besides, it's hard to build 'em there anyway.

We should do a little more exploring before we decide where to found the next city. But we need to have a spot agreed upon before the settler's built.

There is no need to switch tile to forest after 5 turns because growth may be more important. Third citizen appearing after 7 turns would be automatically going to forest giving 2 extra shields required to finish settler in 9 turns. It then would be possible to switch citizen from forest to grassland for better growth of the city. This would waste no shields and no food and add some commerce to research. Even with luxury slider going up it would net +1gpt for 2 turns if there is a road near river built by worker.

Shields:
3spt x 7 = 21
bonus 2 shields on turn 7/8 = 23
4 spt x 2 = 8 + 23 =31 on turn 9. (versus 30 + 2 after the settler on turn 9 = 32), so one shield in wasted

Food:
3fpt x 7 = 21
2fpt x 2 = 6 for total 27 (versus 21+2 basically netting 1 shield wasted for 4 food accumulated)

how do you know the 3rd citizen will go to the forest on its own? Personally I doubt it, but I think if we tell the governer to emphasize production it might just work anyway.

How many more turns for the worker to make the mine?
I like to build a city on the square that is SW of the warrior for the food bonous and it will be a good defencive position on the land bridge.

Originally posted by Emp.Napoleon
I like to build a city on the square that is SW of the warrior...
Well that's good, but:

1. It would be too close to the capital.
2. We can't build a city on a mountain! :p

Where will the eastern warrior go next turn? (BTW we could name those units now so it's easier to talk about them. ;))

I suggest straight to the East.

And for the other one, I think you all know where he should go.


I suggest we name those warriors.


One could be Ankka. :mischief: :smug:

So I ment to the SE of the warrior.

Btw, DZ. Have you noticed the save game mailing list? It would be nice if you could send around the save from time to time...

Cities:-

Where the warrior is (Eastern one)
Hill next to the fishies (south of eastern warrior)
1 square SE of the tobacco

I agree with Matrix on the city placement thingie - we should grab as much land as possible.

The movement of the warriors is obvious, and Naming the units would be good, as we could referr to the 'em by their names -- not Ankka though :p

Edit: Cool Gainy would be more appropriate in my opinion ;)

How about "Ugly Gainy" then? :p

Originally posted by Cheetah
Btw, DZ. Have you noticed the save game mailing list? It would be nice if you could send around the save from time to time...

I also had this in mind a while ago.

I think the settler should settle SE of the southern forest.
That way we will get both bonus grasslands, and the cities won't overlap eachother as fast as if we build it closer to our capital.
Another option wich also would be good is to place it on the landbridge.
We should explore the eastern land before deciding where on the LB in that case.

The warrior should go straight east in next turn, to see if the land ends there or goes on to the east/SE.

Let's call one of them "Ankka & Gainy" then. :)

And I assume that the city locations you listed was suggestions Gainy? I was thinking SE of the eastern warrior, on the plains, so it would be able to access both fishes...

I like cheetah's city placement plan. I think that maybe after this settler is made we should make another warrior to go in the other direction for mor city spots.

Originally posted by Cheetah
... I was thinking SE of the eastern warrior, on the plains, so it would be able to access both fishes...

Why would you need a town with two fishes not near the river? It would need an aqueduct too soon. Two cities having one fish each might be better.

Also, I don't understand the point about land grabbing. What we would do with it? Sell to other teams? The closer towns are to the capitol, the lower is corruption and the better is production and income. And it is more easy to build roads and develop the cities.

Land will be usefull to show our strength aginst teams such as CDZ and intimidate them.

I still will advocate building a city 3 tiles southeast on the forest.

I agree with Hygro, but let's see first what the Western warrior reveals: we should try and expand towards our enemies first.

As an Agricultural civ, we get Aqueducts at half-price so we shouldn't be too focused on every city being a river city. I still think that the forest tile is too close, plus we would lose a nice production option in what looks like primarily grassland.

I also think that the forest tile is a little too close.

But 3 tiles is optimum: We can move 1-move units from ciy to city in 1 turn.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
As an Agricultural civ, we get Aqueducts at half-price so we shouldn't be too focused on every city being a river city. I still think that the forest tile is too close, plus we would lose a nice production option in what looks like primarily grassland. Dude! In despotism as agricultural, the only way to get the third food tile in the city square is to be on fresh water. That extra, constant food tile is so useful! It's not the aqueducts at all.

Must completely agree with Hygro. Especially amazing is the build of capitol on the gold hill. Not only the extra food from agricultural trait is lost by doing this, this also forfeited any additional commerce of working this gold hill not on the city square. For this defeat would be a too easy punishment.

Actually the tile has no effect on the fact that we get 3 food a turn on the city square. Also, when settling on a resource the only part that gets cancelled is the bonus food. Shields and commerce stay. This is why we have the highest GNP in the world.

Yeah, so actually IMHO that was the best spot anywhere near...

Originally posted by Hygro
Actually the tile has no effect on the fact that we get 3 food a turn on the city square. Also, when settling on a resource the only part that gets cancelled is the bonus food. Shields and commerce stay. This is why we have the highest GNP in the world.

Ok, let me put it this way. If there is a new settler 4 turns earlier which builds a town on a river you are essentially getting back all this commerce lost by not settling on the gold hill gaining more territory earlier. Now, what you suggest and what is the only right thing to do is build a settler and march back to where the starting settler came from. Looks at least strange but good because acknowledges the mistake made by moving the starting settler and corrects this mistake. The most significant power of agricultural trait is rapid growth after all. Anything that delays growth should be avoided unless there are severe happiness problems. IMHO highest GNP on turn 12 is not something to be proud about playing with agricultural civilization. It should be highest population which it is not.

akots, have you ever heard of offsetting your strong points? ;)

The fact that we have the best GNP in the game will ultimately enhance our science research as well. We discover Warrior Code in 5 turns, and will then be able to produce our UU if we wish. Had we not settled on the mountain, we would never be able to research as quickly because it would be harder for an Agricultural civ to justify using a gold hill that only produces 1 food.

So now we have the Gold hill for the remainder of the game, and are exploiting that tile for 3 food to boot. Besides the initial delay of 2 turns(not 4), I really don't see anything wrong with that.

Yes, only 2 teams even did settle on the first turn, which also evens up, if it is what you are concerned about.

I'm not saying it is not possible to build a city on the gold hill. Delay is indeed 4 turns because for marching 2 turns we lose 4-turn worth of food being agricultural hence delaying settler 4 turns indeed versus non-agricultural civilization. Second settler could have built a town there as well with very similar gains. And I don't understand the point about unique unit. Do we want Golden Age in Despotism that early with only a handful of cities? IMHO, building unique unit should be delayed and avoided as long as possible at least to Republic or Monarchy. Warrior Code is only useful as a step to Monarchy and for barracks which is still too early because building them would severely impede expansion. Therefore, this early research boost may be rather useless.

Edited: To illustrate the point about 4-turn delay. To grow to pop 3 city need to accumulate 40 food at +3fpt which makes it 42 food in 14 turns. It cannot be 39 food in 13 turns because this is not enough to grow. That is why delay is 2 turns for the move and +2 turns for growth.

However, there are some positive points of building on gold hill: 1) More central location of Palace. 2) Some early research useful for trading (if we meet someone early and they are willing to trade). 3) Better opportunities to explore the map. IMHO they do not seem strong enough to justify the settler march. Well, it is done and there is little point to argue about that.

hence delaying settler 4 turns indeed versus non-agricultural civilization

But we are agricultural, hence it's 2 turns :p

And I don't understand the point about unique unit. Do we want Golden Age in Despotism that early with only a handful of cities?

No. Barbs are set to be roaming or something, and with a Javelin Thrower, we would be likely to get a few workers out of 'em, and some gold :)

Warrior Code is only useful as a step to Monarchy and for barracks which is still too early because building them would severely impede expansion. Therefore, this early research boost may be rather useless.

It is still a boost. No matter how you look at it, we are still going to be ahead in techs (assuming no techs are gotten from huts)
We also get the Jav throwers :) -- which will be useful as i've explained above.

Can I request that future screen shots are posted with the grid on please. :)