Here is the known landscape circa 2900 BC:

I actually took the time to see how we stack up against our new neighbors. First up is the Histograph.

After a shaky start, we seem to be on the way back. :)

Next is the Culture Chart.

Notice the late movement for C3B. Did they already build a Temple? :eek:

And here is the Powergraph. We seem to be a bit more solid here, most likely due to the extra gold from "Capital Hill". :)

Yet our Military Advisor has a different attitude on how we stack up against C3B.

Here is the Leader Board. Although this may not look too good for us, we have made great strides in the past few turns.

Finally, here is the NE area. The C3B Warrior is heading due south, but I still sent Edward toward the mountain.

Also, I really feel that we need to take advantage of the bonus grasslands, tobacco and defensive value of either proposed city site. This would probably be our 6th or 7th city, but this area looks too good to pass up.

Hmm, I would recomend building more Military Units, if we are to get to a strong stance.

Good point, Peri...... :hmm: Hey, wtf! :D

Seriously, it was one of the reasons I decided(with Yndy's help ;) ) to switch both cities back to Warriors. The way I look at it is this: these two Warriors only take two more turns(Fanatazuma grows next turn) so the Settlers can be started immediately afterward. Another thing I like about delaying the Settlers is that their completeion won't leave us with two Size 1 cities for 7-10 more turns. Instead we will have these units ready mid-Size 3, so that both cities will spend less time at Size 1 --- giving us more production in the long run.

Plus, we will be able to exhaust all exploration avenues(except the far NE) and guard the canal site.

@Yndy, I am not too concerned about us having two Warriors near the canal site as long as we stand on the actual canal tile. I don't think we would need to worry about putting two warriors there until we see C3B marching a Settler/Spear our way. Plus, see my above idea about building a city on one of the hills just north of that site.

With this in mind, is everyone okay with the two Warriors now?

I think if we have two warriors it looks like we are hiding something and may be taken as a threat. If we build a city it looks like we are getting the fish bonus or the canal thing.
If they start a trade with us and look at the trade table can they see that we have ivory even if it is not tradable.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Good point, Peri...... :hmm: Hey, wtf! :D

April Fools :p. Its the Great CFC Avatar Switch event for April 1st ;)
.

I hope Peri is doing the same :)

Everyone is ok with the 2 warrior switch. :)

Originally posted by Hygro
Everyone is ok with the 2 warrior switch. :)

No, now everyone approves it. Silly peasant, how dare you undermine my authority.
:p ;)

Originally posted by Zarn


No, now everyone approves it. Silly peasant, how dare you undermine my authority.
:p ;)
Hey I'm military dude, not a peasant! Besides, I said everyone is in support, and since you are, I am right :)

IMPORTANT

Hey, everyone. Just a reminder to participate in the C3B thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83351) so that we can go forward with negotiations by Friday. I have listed in that thread the various issues we need to hammer out by that time.

Thanks! :D

I say we should try to get a city on he other side of the canal fairly soon... We could always expand from outside to the in, you know, but inside out may be more difficult.

Notice the late movement for C3B. Did they already build a Temple? :eek:

Nope, they built their capital earlier than we did, thus their palace has already doubled its culture output -- ours will begin to catch up next turn :)

Emp.Napoleon, they will not see it that way. Any other team would do the same thing. When you see a choke-point, take it.
We should really think about polling the city-building 'issue'. There is alot of disagreement.

That city is a terrible idea from a military standpoint as well as all the other standpoints (economic for example). Our two warriors will do the trick, and as my esteemed colleague Gainy bo has pointed out numorously, we need productive cities, not "strategically placed" cities that will have wasted our population and production, without paying much back for it.

Hmm... Hygro got me convinced. Let's go for max production, and let those warriors do the stuff there at the canal.