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).