View Full Version : Turn 12 - 3450 BC
Donovan Zoi Mar 19, 2004, 06:57 PM Here's the latest, although it looks like there may be something in the Northeast. We will know for certain next turn, unless someone can confirm it now.
Here's the full screen. I am starting to shrink these now. Let me know if this is a problem. :)
Donovan Zoi Mar 19, 2004, 07:01 PM And here is a close-up of the northeast. Do you see anything in the whitish hidden tile? A possible lux, perhaps?
Donovan Zoi Mar 19, 2004, 07:05 PM Either way, we will find out next turn but let me zoom it in a bit.... ;)
Cheetah Mar 19, 2004, 08:45 PM Hm. Maybe we can wait with settling the east for a while. Looks like we have some mighty good lands to our west. :)
Pegster Mar 19, 2004, 08:47 PM It's sugar there:)
And it looks as if it might be more land to explore.
I think we should send the eastern warrior straight north next round.
Zarn Mar 19, 2004, 09:46 PM I agree to move him (Eastern warrior) north.
We should start thinking of places to settle.
Emp.Napoleon Mar 19, 2004, 10:19 PM Well it is looking as if it is a cape or a inland lake. To have a city as a canal would be great and where the warrior is now is perfect.
Ankka Mar 20, 2004, 01:12 AM Good point, EMP. That city would be a good one... and it would get the sugar.
Hygro Mar 20, 2004, 02:27 AM Better to put cities on the grassland nearby. On the hill northwest, on the forest southeast.
Ankka Mar 20, 2004, 03:35 AM We should expand powerfully IMHO, so we don't get in a situation like the current PTW one...
Gainy Mar 20, 2004, 09:28 AM DZ, next turn, could you right click on some coast in the "possible" inner lake? If it gives 2 food, then we'll know it's a lake, else it isn't.
And could we move the western warrior onto the hill next to it? This would give a better/more useful view IMO (in conparison to the mountain).
I'm all for the building of a canal, and I retract my previous city-placement-thoughts.
Pegster Mar 20, 2004, 10:08 AM Moving it to the hill sounds like a good idea.
Ankka Mar 20, 2004, 12:28 PM Yes, the hill would see better. Good point, Gainy.
RegentMan Mar 20, 2004, 12:34 PM None of those two bodies of water are lakes; you can see the sea tiles in each :( . I agree about the warrior movement to the hill. And Ankka's right; we need to settle agressively as not to end up in another PTW...
Ankka Mar 20, 2004, 12:55 PM But, I say, let's name those units.
Gainy Mar 20, 2004, 01:21 PM None of those two bodies of water are lakes; you can see the sea tiles in each :( .
I've seen lakes with sea tiles in 'em before - that are less than 21 tiles in size. I think... :hmm:
We could name the Eastern warrior Edward and the Western one Wally :)
Edit: For y'all wanting to talk about the names of units, go to this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1689736#post1689736
RegentMan Mar 20, 2004, 08:40 PM Originally posted by Gainy bo
I've seen lakes with sea tiles in 'em before - that are less than 21 tiles in size. I think... :hmm:
It's been my experience one sea tile will salt up your lake. I guess we'll see when the save comes along. :)
Emp.Napoleon Mar 20, 2004, 09:09 PM Since they are both oceans it will be a good idea to settle where the warrior is now to make a cannal.
Ankka Mar 20, 2004, 11:34 PM I agree with EMP, unless the warrior reveals something from the fog that changes the situation.
Hygro Mar 21, 2004, 01:39 AM Originally posted by RegentMan
It's been my experience one sea tile will salt up your lake. I guess we'll see when the save comes along. :)
One sea tile will not salt a lake. It is based on the number of water tiles only (21 was mentioned, and thats probably right).
|
|