3200 BC has brought us Warrior Code, and with it the ability to build our Javelin Thrower. Our scientists have now taken up research on Alphabet, which is the prerequisite to Mathematics. We discover it in 17 turns, but several factors will change this estimate next turn.

Next turn, Fanatazuma will build a Settler and revert to Size 1 for 6 turns. This will allow us to drop our Lux rate from 20% back to 0 and resume 100% science.

Now we need to decide. What do we build next in our capital? I have heard good arguments for four different things:

Granary - Would be nice, but completion would be slowed by our Size 1 production.

Warrior - Easiest to build to allow immediate expansion to the SE or SW. Can have this unit within 4 turns.

Settler - Starting a Settler now would be too early, as it would be completed before we reach Size 3.

Javelin Thrower - Too early for a 30 shield unit. We have more exploring to do. Wait til our cities grow a bit and then unleash a small battalion.


At this time, I would recommend Warrior/ Settler for Fanatazuma, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Here is the screenshot of our capital:

Now for the expansion. Wally has found quite a bit of coast and next turn should be able to confirm or deny existence of a western landbridge. Either way, that hill looks like a nice spot for a city. Three food bonuses(hidden whale east of Wally) after we add some culture.

The river that flows from our future Ivory city NW through the Flood Plains opens up into the northern sea. The more water the better, as far as our early defense is concerned. :)

In the east, Edward has hit the motherlode, but only for Tobacco.

Question: Should we head due north or due east next turn?

Finally, here is the big picture:

I say we build a city after all of the other three perposed cities and built to the west of our western warrior.

It would be great to build warrior first and then another settler/warrior/JT. Edward better heads north for a hill and Wally can go for another mountain.

This is a planned city development proposal.
It also shows the build order.
This proposal offers a 'close build' and takes advantage of the terrain.
Please discuss. :)

Since 3, 4 and 5 are placed in good choke points perhaps we should consider expanding west rather than east?

I do not support this city plan, as #6 should be #2.

Why do you think that?
Although it is on a river an near the capital is there not more to be said for expansion? After all we can settle '6' at our leisure but may face competition for '2'.

I'd build 2 and 1 a tile SE. Although, that hill does make a tempting defendsive spot. I'd also like to see more of the land, too (especially to the SW).

The plan is good if we have 8 settler NOW. Site 1 may be good. Site 6 should be number 2 but more exploration to the west is needed. May be there is a food bonus to the west with river or lake. Other cities can be built later. Most of them would be hopelessly corrupt and are not expected to contribute to production or science. With this build we must reasearch Code of Laws ASAP and build courthouses everywhere as a first build which is very risky tactic IMHO. For chokepoints, it might be fine to produce several veteran JT and fortify them there to claim the area and defend against sneak attacks.

Big concern is why we did not meet other civilizations... May be, it is an island or small continent?

Also, 6,7 and 8 should be more like 2,3,4. Half the reason is because of the new corruption model. The other half is because... if we meet someone far out there where 2 and 3 are, how are we going to defend ourselves? 9-turn NAP just to get troops there? This is also only turn 17. I've had SP games where I haven't met civs until later. This is also a much shorter game (5 teams this time?). So, it may not be until turn 25 for all we know. We could have ample room to grow.

I see the sense in that. I probably should not have made a ' build order' when I designed the map. What do people think about the actual sites? Are they viable?

a tad spread out for my tastes

How do you think they should be set out? :)

Originally posted by Peri
How do you think they should be set out?

IMHO it is too early to tell. Careful plan for placement of cities requires exploration to the west. But number 1 is OK justy to claim the luxury and number 2 (number 6 on you map) also looks good. May be some other places are also good depending on circumstances and distance to other civilizations and barbarian camps.

Great work, Peri, and thank you. :D I like these sites, though I would slightly modify the build order.

I would build 1 first(obviously ;) ), followed by a race to 6 or 2. Since both cities should be producing Settlers in the near future, the one from our capital can be sent to Site 6 and the one from the new Ivory city can be sent to Site 2. In this regard, proximity takes precedence over actual build order. :) And these sites are the best candidates for early expansion since they will all receive the freshwater food bonus.

Like akots, I think that is far as we should plan for now, unless we see the immediate need to secure the land around our canals. Heck ,we still have to confirm that Site 3 is even a canal city.

Great discussion by everyone though. Let's keep it up. :D

Also, to answer another concern, we are playing a Standard map with 5 civs. For comparison, I am playing an 8-player PBEM(6 AI) on Standard and met my first opponent on Turn 15. So we should have a bit of breathing room. :)

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I would build 1 first(obviously ;) ), followed by a race to 6 or 2. Since both cities should be producing Settlers in the near future, the one from our capital can be sent to Site 6 and the one from the new Ivory city can be sent to Site 2.


Sound thinking DZ. :)



Like akots, I think that is far as we should plan for now, unless we see the immediate need to secure the land around our canals. Heck ,we still have to confirm that Site 3 is even a canal city.


Yes you are both right. We don't need to plan further than our next couple of cities at the moment. :)

I think Eddy should go North, and Wally to the mountain.

After the settler, I think a warrior should be built so we can explore the SW areas fast, which is needed so we can know if there are god city sites or a landbridge or anything there.

I like Peri's maps and all of the building orders seam fine. Good job on the map Peri.

We also must remember a very, VERY important detail. In competitive MP games, games rarely last into the industrial era. Unlike a SP game, where 2/3 of the game is spent before medicine, we might spend 4/5 of the game before medicine. That means, no cities above size 12. This also means, build tightly so that each city only has 12 tiles to use.

And those 12 tiles are the key. How do we use them? How many shields will they produce? What do we want those cities to produce? If they are to be military cities, then we need shield counts of 5spt, 6spt, 10spt, 15spt... maybe even 20spt if we only have horses.

Reposted so ye don't have to refer back to the 1st page:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1702589

#1 is fine. #2 should be 4 tiles SW of the capital -- assuming it's next to the water. #3 where #6 is. #4 should be 1 tile south of where #8 is, and #5 should be where #7 is :)
I'm not going to bother thinking about where the rest shoudl go, as it's too far ahead -- good map btw Peri, the placements look about right.
This could all change though, depending if we meet anyone soon/where we meet 'em.

Regarding building: I feel we should go for two warriors, then another settler -- I didn't know Jav throwers were 30 shields :eek:

Edward should go due north, and Wally should go Due east :) -- I really don't think that's another landbridge btw, but we should find out just in case.

Akots, your 'opinion(s)' in another thread about the Capital placement are crap. It is perfect.

I agree with Gainy's last line.

Hear, hear, Chieftess. Now that is sound thinking if you ask me. ;)

Furthermore, I think a debate about this entire city building schedule is a little impossible. Everyone might have something to say about any city. Plus the fact that we'll have met other Civs be the time all these cities are built, and we should of course also depend this on what the situation is by that time.

So let's only plan ahead settler by settler.

Originally posted by Gainy bo
Akots, your 'opinion(s)' in another thread about the Capital placement are crap. It is perfect.

I'm happy that you like the placement of the capital. My concern was about lost food and delayed settler production. To explain again, I would try to illustrate it with another approach. By moving the starting settler, we are losing 6 food for the first 2 turns, then 6 food for every settler. If we build, for example, total of 50 cities in the game, by the time the last town is founded, we lose approximately 300 food which means total of about 15-25 population at times when this population is crucial for growth and production. For this, we gain 2gpt or 3 gpt for maximum 100 turns (until Monarchy/Republic when gold hill tile would be worked by a citizen) for total 200-300 gold which is a fixed sum. So, basically, we sold +300 food (which we cannot buy) PLUS roughly +200 shields (production by missing population, cost about +600 gold) PLUS about +300g (trade in tile worked by missing population considering modest corruption) for 200-300 gold which is a very modest one-time gain indeed.

However, other good points of having capital in its present location were also discussed. IMHO, this is so evident, I'm wondering how it is possible to win if this has to be explained. As a rule, settler can be moved only to claim a food bonus in the city radius which was not the case in this game.

And I would second Chieftess on tight city placement of distance 3.5-4.0 maximum.

That's lovely, but in reality, we only miss out on two turns, no matter how you dress it up.

Originally posted by Gainy bo
That's lovely, but in reality, we only miss out on two turns, no matter how you dress it up.

In reality, if we were not playing an agricultural civilization, the losses would be much smaller. However, with agricultural, the loss is huge and there is no way to recover. From lost income, it is possible to recover by trades or other tricks but not from lost food. Don't know how to explain so that you can understand the full scale of consequences. Probably, it would be evident by itself during subsequent gameplay.

I completely understand what you're saying. But you are looking at the situation in a daft way.
We will only ever be 2 turns behind what we would have been had we settled on the spot. It doesn't make much difference, and our capital is in a much better place now anyways (extra defence and commerce)

Originally posted by Gainy bo
... We will only ever be 2 turns behind what we would have been had we settled on the spot. It doesn't make much difference, and our capital is in a much better place now anyways (extra defence and commerce)
It makes a huge difference. The only two things the starting settler march is good for are:
1) More central Palace location (though it is not central enough) to reduce corruption. It would work only for 1 or two cities adjacent to the Palace because there is just no room for more to the south.
2) More rapid exploration (delayed a bit by the move but still slightly faster).

What you are saying, defensive bonus and commerce, is ridiculous. If we have to defend the capital, the game is already lost. And commerce is a very minor factor especially that early. You contradict yourself in the post. "It doesn't make much difference" and then "our capital is in a much better place now". Makes no sense.

What you are saying, defensive bonus and commerce, is ridiculous. If we have to defend the capital, the game is already lost.

No. An example, in a PBEM I was playing, I was probably in the strongest position -- Out of myself, Bootstoots, and Strider.
They both declared war on me, and Strider (being the Carthaginians) decided to send in a stack of Numidian Mercs, and Archers/swordsmen (I think :hmm: )
He sent them straight towards my capital, and there wasn't really much I could do about it -- as they have a defence of 3.
If it wasn't for my great tactical genius (;)), then I would have been slaughtered. One of the things which could have saved me is that I built my capital on a hill -- making my defensive units have a defence of 3 - 4.
Even though I took care of the stack before Strider got 'em to my captial (2 tiles away), he could easily have taken it - whilst I still had a rather large empire. The game was by no means lost. Although if he had attacked it, the hill might have saved me :)

And commerce is a very minor factor especially that early

Rubbish. It's what gets you ahead in techs, and allows you to command the trading in the game. It'll also increase our chances of getting a SGL.

You contradict yourself in the post. "It doesn't make much difference" and then "our capital is in a much better place now". Makes no sense.

I was saying it doesn't make much difference that we built it 2 turns later, I was not referring to the placement of our capital. "We will only ever be 2 turns behind what we would have been had we settled on the spot. It doesn't make much difference"
Our capital is in a much better place now.

Being on gold, on a hill, on a river, with bonus grassland next to it, as an agricultural civ, is an ideal city location.

Don't try and argue with me ;)

Originally posted by Gainy bo
... Don't try and argue with me ...

Yes, I would not, since it is hopeless.

I think about everything is said about this topic. Let's let it rest. ;)