Current discussion on city placement begins here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2064747#post2064747)

I say to move one tile north, and to order the worker to road the wheat where he stands. By moving north, we'll obliterate the jungle and protect the valuable wheat tiles.

IGNORE, This referenced the previous start.

that start was invalid.

that start was invalid.

Why? :confused:

Oh, never mind. I see at the top.

I second the motion to get closer to the spices :).

There is no spice. That was the other start. That did not exist. Remember? :p

I say build where we are. Its got river, wheat, and hills. Its got the bonus within the radius. Its the perfect compromise. So go with it. :p

There is no spice. That was the other start. That did not exist. Remember? :p

I say build where we are. Its got river, wheat, and hills. Its got the bonus within the radius. Its the perfect compromise. So go with it. :p
Thats it, Someone has to post the screenshots of the legal game :p

Edit: Never Mind, I saw the screenshot from the legal game

Ok, In looking at the screenshot, I beleve that setteling on the tile NW or SE of our current possition would be a good idea, Since if we settle on the wheat, we would not get the benifits of that resource and we would be missing out on an extra wheat.

Ok, In looking at the screenshot, I beleve that setteling on the tile NW or SE of our current possition would be a good idea, Since if we settle on the wheat, we would not get the benifits of that resource and we would be missing out on an extra wheat.

If we go to the NW, it looks like we're likely to get more jungle.

NW is the solution (imho)...
We get the two wheats, the river, we get coastal but we lose a BG...

I don't see any big advantage in having a coastal capital. What do we get? And we lose a good bit of our production.

NW - there's coast. DaveShack - get a new modpack! ;)

North to the Jungle is best IMHO. mining the wheat would be better than roading it. The river will stop any travel bonus. We'll clear the uneeded Jungle and put some space between us and that damn coast.

We clear one jungle with the North, but we get two new one...

I say we move north to the Jungle. There is probably another Hill northeast of the northern Hill we can see.

North to the Jungle is best IMHO. We'll clear the uneeded Jungle and put some space between us and that damn coast.
But that gives us at least 2 tiles of unneeded jungle...

I would say move to the grassland SE. It gets us completely away from the coast. We will pick up at least one more hill. Moving to the jungle, we would still have at least one coastal tile in the radius, and we can't be certain how much jungle is up there. If we stay where we are we end up with 2 coastal tiles and can't do anything with the grain tile. If we move to the hill, we'll need an aqueduct for growth. Therefore, a move to the SE is my choice.

Personally I lean twoards directly east. We're garenteed two hills, got both wheats, and got the River.

We lose any Production from taking down the forest, however there appears to be plenty of other forests around, and a Plains to the North of that location. Though that "plains" could turn out to be a desert (can't quite tell with the fog).

I'm against a Costal City, all Costal cities do (this early) is commerce and navy. Our Capital needs to be a production center.

Also, by planting on the forest, there's a chance we don't have to waste any Bonus Grasslands at all.

I'd say go NW. We'd get 2 coast squares max. We would still have both wheats and the possibility of any hills up north. We would also get another hill when the border expands.

I would also suggest N, save us the trouble of clearing the jungle.

I thought of going east, as well. It just wasn't one of the options offered.

NW we get 4 water tiles max, 2 min. (the figure of two assumes that the one to our west is a 1 tile lake)

North, saves us the trouble of clearning 1 jungle, but it ensures 2 or more jungles will be in the Capital's radius, which we will have to clear, and will likely be forced to clear early on by placing our capital there.

Moving East means there's only one jungle tile which we know will be in our radius, I doubt there's any more jungle to our east, however, that is speculation.

Comnenus, that's one of the reason we have discussions, just because the Leader doesn't suggest it in the first post, doesn't mean it's a bad, it just means there was some reason they didn't concider it. (ie. some disadvantage was found which seemed to them to be greater then the disadvantages of others or they just didn't even think of it.)

My guess is there is alot of uncertainty, about the position, because less of the land that way has been exposed.

Remember, for all we know that is an inland sea (a la Vo Mimbre inDG4), or a pair of one tile lakes (like near Montpellier). So lets stop assuming thats a coast. And since we're towards the tropics, chances are that is no little patch of jungle, its the edge of a large rainforest. Which means going north would waste a minimum of two tiles on jungle, possibly more. To the east we have desert, and to the south hills. I say we either stay put or go southeast. Among other things, it allows for a coastal port at the mouth of the river, should that be ocean.

For all technical purposes, it IS a coastline! That's what the tile is. :) Let's just go 1SE and settle. We'll need to work on that wheat ASAP (irragate first, then road, and then mine the next).

I think we can turn this one into a settler factory.

Due East is the best option IMHO. I don't see any real necessity to have a coastal city as the capital. We keep the river, it looks like there could be more grassland to the east, and we keep both wheat bonuses. Looks like there could be some desert to the north, but that's not too drastic.

The other consideration is where do we think our future cities are going to be? Looking at that map, I'd have to say there's probably not going to be many to the west. Moving east means the amount of "corruption free space" we waste on sea tiles is hopefully minimised.

To me, SE is the second best option. But I have a huge phobia of building on BG. I tend to try and find normal Grassland to build, as by building on it I effectively turn it into BG.

South to the hills might provide a nice defense bonus later...

I would definately go SE, and allow the worker to work the tile it is on.

Due East is the best option ...

To me, SE is the second best option.

I agree with this opinion. That might be floodplain up there to the NE, which would be good for early growth. The drawback is there could be desert around as well.

The safe option would be to move SE.

I guess for these two it would come down to risk assessment.

An option not mentioned is moving the worker to investigate the terrain before deciding a certain spot to settle. I think the worker should not move; the settler moving SE looks good to me.

If we move the Settler North and clear the Jungle, we turn a 2food tile into a Bonus Grassland. If we move SE we waste a shield as the BG will not be any different than planting the Settler in the Jungle. We'l still only get 1 shield and 2 food. So SE is a waste of a shield.

If you look at the mini-map, you can see we are fairly close to the Equator to the South. But we are only just starting to see Jungle. This is good! If we were a little or a lot further South and starting to see Jungle, we would know that there is a lot of Jungle between us and the Equator. What we see is a tell-tale sign of minimal Jungleland. This means there will be many tiles to the south that are non-Jungle and ready to expand/settle on. It also means that there is probably not a lot of Jungle to the North of us. All of these are good point, if true.

The only reason I can see for putting our Capital on the Coast is if we wanted to build the Colossus, and then later in the game collecting uncorrupted commerce off the water. This means nothing to me when we lose production and growth by giving up land tiles for this.

Due East would waste a natural 2 shield tile. We need that tile for production, plus the 10 shields when we cut it down.

To all of those who still think we're playing C3C, we're not. Irrigating that wheat before we're very close to Monarch (which is what I hope we're going for) is a complete waste of time. Only mining benefits us at this time.

Moving onto any BG is a waste of a natural shield. Why do it? Moving onto the grassland to the SW moves us away from the river and a wheat. So does the hill to the South.

THE most efficient move we could make is onto the Jungle to the North. We get the free shield, the river, both wheats, so we'll have plenty of growth and production. Moving towards the Jungle is not going to be a problem, as we know the Jungle is minimal in this area. We're probably going to be expanding to the south, looking for a place to put the FP. So the Jungle isn't going to be a major problem. That's my opinion any way. Settler to the North and plant, Worker stays put and mines the Wheat.

Moving towards the Jungle is not going to be a problem, as we know the Jungle is minimal in this area. We're probably going to be expanding to the south, looking for a place to put the FP. So the Jungle isn't going to be a major problem. That's my opinion any way. Settler to the North and plant, Worker stays put and mines the Wheat.

You probably have a fair bit more Civ experience than me, Cyc, but I tend to find that where there's 1 jungle, there's hundreds of jungles. Especially when we're this close to the equator. I agree with your assessment that we'll be looking to plant FP in the south. Due east wouldn't necessarily "waste" the 2 sheild tile - I prefer to think of it as "saving it for later on". I assume we'll want a city or 15 along that coastline, so it will be used later.

I agree with your statement about the worker. I think whatever we do, settler stays put and mines the wheat, then road, and mine the other wheat and road it. The only possible exception that I can think of, is if we were tossing up between E and SE, so we moved the worker onto the other wheat to see what's to the east. That way it's only wasting 1 worker move, as the worker can start on that wheat first instead.

You probably have a fair bit more Civ experience than me, Cyc, but I tend to find that where there's 1 jungle, there's hundreds of jungles. Especially when we're this close to the equator.

Well, of course there's going to be more Jungle. :p But what are we? 3 tiles South of the Equator? And we're on grassland, have a forest tile, hills, more grasslands, more hills and another forest tile in view. That's not a lot of Jungle tiles to be seen so close to the Equator. I've seen maps that had nothing BUT Jungle forever 7 or so tiles South of the Equator. We are in an area of minimal Jungle being so close to the Equator.

BTW, Settlers can't mine. ;) And you want to use a natural 2 shield tile up for a city location when we'll desperately need it for immediate production purposes?

I'd personally move the worker East to see what's there and then decide.

I will stick with the Domestic Minister, and several others on Southeast, for several reasons, and the main ones are of course economical, but also a question of scalability, strategic flexibility and the immediate expansion into southern areas for settlement.

As we can see directly south, is a range of hills, where there is a very bountiful and fertile river basin with two bonus foodplains, with a jungle to the North. East and Southeast, there is some forest as well as the famous SE tile many of us want.

The main point with SE, is that we can quickly send the first warrior southwards on that range of hills, and scout double distances in this new settlement region. It is most likely we will continue southwards, as we are just south of the equator, with Jungle in the North. Long term, building by the base of those hills, will signify that this city can produce enormous amounts of shields, supported by the river and foodplains when we discover Monarchy and so on. The religious bonus makes government change early in the game very attractive, as Anarchy and so on is reduced to one turn.

Most likely, both iron and horses would be found to the south, as well as the most arable land. And I see no need to waste the jungle shields on building a settlement, as working the tile with a worker will speed up any building process in place.
That range of hills may also let us quickly to connect to iron even faster, as I suspect South to have more hills than North, at least from what we can see.'

Just throwing in my 2 Yen

Moving the worker east will lose us 3 turns of an irragated floodplain, when we could be growing. (it's just that I like to micromanage in my games... :))

Due to time constraints, I will post a poll on this subject late tonight. This poll will be open until a couple hours until the chat starts to give me time to post the instructions.

Moving the worker east will lose us 3 turns of an irragated floodplain, when we could be growing. (it's just that I like to micromanage in my games... :))

Huh?

Don't we have the irrigation penalty in Despotism?

Meaning we won't benefit from the irrigation untill Monarchy/Republic...

Huh?

Don't we have the irrigation penalty in Despotism?

Meaning we won't benefit from the irrigation untill Monarchy/Republic...

Irrigating a tile which started out with 3 and was penalized to 2, will result in it being increased to 4 and penalized to 3. Irrigating a wheat on grassland will result in 4 food (2+2+1, penalized by 1). We need +4 food for a 5 turn factory, though it will be a while before we have the 6 shields and granary to go with it.

I am opposed to building on a bonus grassland, because we lose the extra shield and the one thing we'll be in danger of being short of is immediately useful shields on two food tiles. Instead, I would advocate moving E and building on the forest, which keeps the BG and moves us slightly farther from the coast, giving a little better spacing for the cities to the W.

I am opposed to building on a bonus grassland, because we lose the extra shield and the one thing we'll be in danger of being short of is immediately useful shields on two food tiles. Instead, I would advocate moving E and building on the forest, which keeps the BG and moves us slightly farther from the coast, giving a little better spacing for the cities to the W.

You don't want to use a BG for settlement because you'll waste a shield, but you'll use the 2 shield forest to settle. DaveShack, occasionally you'll have to switch a laborer to the forest for the extra shield. Don't burn the forest. :)

Dear People

From what I can see, I have realized that East is the best route, and disagree with Noldo there, and agree with Falcon02, as we have 3 hills and a forest in the quadrant South of us, 3 jungle and a hill (ours) north of us, 4 forests east of us and some grasslands and probably a coast west of us. with monarchy and mines, these will produce no less than 6 shields separately, as well as 2 food, with roads, 2 commerce. only with the river we can see, but probably stretching some five tiles East West, we will get 19 food and 2 shields with Monarchy and fully irrigated for these five tiles alone. The river alone will give us 7 commerce. The Eastern position also enables us to cut down 30 shields of northern jungle for improvement building as well as 40 shields of visible forest if we dare to. Clearing these jungles and forest will make even more land for food production. The problem is that we will have a city with a lot of food production, and relatively few shields, unless we move to the SE and includes those Southern Hills. Remember, we can clear jungle for shields even though it is not directly within the city production. Keeping the forests as long as possible gives us the choice to expand the city at our own will, swapping between food and shields based on need. We can cut them down anytime we need more food, and if we need more shields, we develop the southern/northern mines.

And when the production bonuses for other government types kick in, we see that gain. This meticulous analysis of economic long term planning has landed me with Falcon02 on moving East for maximizing long term scalability and Cyc, which has pointed out Monarchy as a desired tech objective along with iron.

I will summarize the savings with an Easter move and cdity build:

Pros
Saves building Aqueduct due to river, gain 100 shields
City growth will be uncapped up to 12, good for a capital
The City has a defense bonus of 25 % to Northern attacks, we are South of Jungle
We create a sound distance to Western Coast
We create a scaleable city, with flexibility on tile usage
We save 3 turns of clearing that forest, using workers to build tiles instead
There is no directly nearby hills in which enemies can fortify close to the city, enabling us to counterattack where there is no river crossing and defend where there is river.



Cons
We lose 10 shields of clearing forest
We lose forest, that produces 2 shields, 1 more shield than Bonus Shield grasslands
A marginal chance for early Iron may be connected in Souther hills with a SE city


we should go directly for Mysticism, Polytheism and Monarchy in order to use our religious Civ trait for a quick revolution, then bronze working and iron with the improved production, food commerce and reduced corruption, in order to optimize near future City placement.


With Monarchy, those two tiles with wheat, will when fully irrigated and with roads, produce 5 food each, and 4 commerce each. A size 12 City, doable without construction we don't need to research for aqueduct here, will net us the following scenario:

2 grassland tiles, 2 irrigated, 2 wheat, 2 river, 2 road
2 grassland tiles, 2 irrigated, 2 Bonus shield, 1 river, 2 road
2 hills, with 2 mines. roads
4 forests, with 4 roads, 3 river
1 grassland tile, irrigated, road
we assume yet another hill we cannot see, for this case, with mine roads

This will net this 12 pop city
Shields: 14
Foods: 25
Commerce 18
plus what is inside the city

So with the following :

Free Aqueduct
River Defense
No Siege Hill
No loss of Bonus grasslands (thanks Dave)
Balanced production and scalable development

I think East is the best option

Provolution, I cant complain with you... :D You persuaded me... :D

And another pro: A good coastal city to the west

I prefer a SE move rather then Easterly as we have atleast 3 hills, 2 fp, 3 forests and the rest grasslands, axs to building on a bg, the loss of one shield is irrelevant imho because there are other bg to use at the beginning when we have limited population size (assuming we use the wheats first to grow and wait for culture to expand or we find others in the South fog), and we would have atleast 3 hills to make up for this loss later on. Nor do we lose any forests which are ime extremely important early to allow easy micro-management.

Moving East loses us the bg West, and a hill and means loss of a forest which I really do like, plus we have no idea as to the terrain further East, if it were all fp and deserts we would have very minimal production.

Benefits of SE over E
Don't lose a forest. (Which I wouldn't clear early anyway as workers are doing more important work)
Have 1 more hill.
We know (pretty much) the terrain, whereas E there may be desert/fp.

We Still have: Next to river, flexible shield/food - 3 hills, 3 forests, 2 wheats, much grassland, (2) fp East.

ok, if we still get rivr SE, that is ok :)

But for a quick development start, East is a better bid.

Provolution, you're not going to sway me with just a deluge of words! Rebuttals as follow: We will still be next to the river if we move SE, so there go your Aqueduct and city growth points. The defense bonus is the same either place. The siege hill point is invalid because the AI never seiges. The distance to the coast point is moot since we have no clue about which way the coast goes. Scalability is the same on one grassland as on another. And why would we waste 3 turns clearing the forest? I don't see why it shouldn't stay. And I see losing a forest as being worse than losing a bonus grassland.

I 100 % agree, I was just uncertain about the river bonus on SE, my wrong, but except for that the calculations are good.

[QUOTE=Noldodan] The siege hill point is invalid because the AI never seiges. [QUOTE]

i have seen the AI siege before, ive seen it do it for over 4 turns, i cant see any combat happening at the capital though, not unless sumthing with Foreign policy or Militarily goes horribly wrong...

I'm with the General. Let's go east.

Huh?

Don't we have the irrigation penalty in Despotism?

Meaning we won't benefit from the irrigation untill Monarchy/Republic...

Yes, but you still get +1 food from an irragated wheat (also cattle, game, etc.). It'll be +4 until we get out of despotism, then it's +5.


BTW, there's a problem with heading east - we lose the extra hills for later use.

I wish to amend my position. I feel we should go SE. Since we don't know enough about the terrain if we move east, the risk assessment is high.

You don't want to use a BG for settlement because you'll waste a shield, but you'll use the 2 shield forest to settle. DaveShack, occasionally you'll have to switch a laborer to the forest for the extra shield. Don't burn the forest. :)

No, I just prefer to work a 2f+2s tile (mined BG) vs 1f+2s tile (forest). I'm not sure that's really better or not... ;)

I would send the worker East, and then make a decision for the settler to move SE or E

I would send the worker East, and then make a decision for the settler to move SE or E

I'm all for scouting, as this will allow us to make a more informed decision, but moving the worker to explore will waste worker turns. One to move east, and another to move back, since we want our first worked tile to be one of the wheat squares. Not that I'm completely against the idea, but we should keep this in mind.

i must say the move for the settler should be decided, made, then we settle, loss of too much time is very bad...meaning more than 1 turn would would be disastrous

well, we would be fine moving worker east, so we know SE or 'e is better, that tile will not be used to quickly anyways

So far, I'm up for East. I'm going to analyze the situation more...

Not my opinion really matters.

EDIT: I just realized that moving east would remove a Bonus Grassland from our workable tiles. IT's not much of a difference, though.

So far, I'm up for East. I'm going to analyze the situation more...

Not my opinion really matters.

EDIT: I just realized that moving east would remove a Bonus Grassland from our workable tiles. IT's not much of a difference, though.

The reason I decided to go SE, is similar to the argument against going to the jungle. Where there's jungle, there's likely more jungle. And where there is floodplain, there is likely desert.

Alas, no rest for the weary. Coming off the heels of an infamous 0'dark 30 chat, I present to you: Japanatica, circa 3450 BC.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_BC3450_turn12.jpg
As I see it, there are two areas for settlement in the map. The first is the hilly/mountainous region with the gems, and the other is the grassland/forest region to the southeast. So there are two questions: which are do we wish to settle first, and where exactly do we want to settle?

For the hills, I would suggest either a single city 4 south and one SW of the capital, or else 2 cities, one on the hill above the single gem, and one 5 south of the capital. As for the grassland/forest area, we only have room for one city in what we can see now, and any of the grasslands down there look like a fine place for a city, although the one furthest SE is pretty far from the capital.

NOTE: This time we actually have enough time for sufficient discussion, so discussion will last for 2 days, then polls will be opened for 2 days. One poll will be on which area to settle first, and there will be a polls on where in each region we should settle.

Note the river in the mountain range with the gems - that could lead down to some nice land. I wouldn't be completely surprised if we discovered some fertile ground to the south. It looks like there could be space for a city to the north as well. But both of these are chancy options given our map view at the moment. Southeast would appear to be the safest.

For the gems I recommend 3S, 1W of the capitol (hill 1N of the N gems). That gives us the ability to use some of the grassland, it is on the coast, and gives good city spacing for another city 3SE, 1S of the capitol.

We need more river information to properly place the city which will use the wheat to the east.

Pathetic. Those are deserts to the south, now we won't be able to utilize the hills as much. Not to mention, we're losing 3 food to the coast. Why? We can't build a harbor now.

Funny, half didn't want a coastal city. Half didn't want a city 1SE, which would have given us plenty of land, and a nice settler factory. (See that extra wheat?) Pathetic! Or, should I say, Apathetic! ;)

Do remove all doubt about the Southeast location we voted away, I will of respect for the scrapped solution present the consequences of faulty capital city foundation, based on polling with too limited cartographic information.

Therefore , I have opened the following thread.

Capital City Foundation Inquiry Commission

I think SE was definitely the best but Alas, what is done is done, I prefer the wheat not being in our radius as this means we can get a second city to help produce settlers/workers with the wheat so our capital can have some production as well as food. I think second city should be NE of the mountain depending upon the land there, to utilise this wheat and fp. A third city should be placed south, imo 3S 1 Sw of Fanatikku or 3S 1W to get Gems and hills. (Like Noldo's 2cities), I vote we take them 3rd and 4th though, depeniding wha the warrior sees on that mtn.

Is our second warrior expploring or defending? I'd explore NE but has a decision been made do we know (I'll go look :) )

As I see it, we should settle in those places and in that order:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_BC3450_turn12(f_c-mod).jpg
The second city placement is placed on the desert tile specificaly not to waste a grassland tile.

The other one is located a bit up north from our current line of sight because it looks fertile up there.

HOnourable Deputy of Culture, the second city has just 1 bg, 3 grass and 1 hill in its radius with the rest being desert, and hwen its culture expands it is still rather bad terrain, I completely disagree and feel we should take immediate advantage of the wheat as a potential city to produce solely settlers and workers and the hills to give us a city with high production for our military before settling these deserts.

I think the second city should go 3 tiles South of the Capital on that hill. And it should build a Temple after the warrior. We could put the 3rd city closer to where everbody thought their "fabled" city should go. to the SE.

This is a great location for what was offered. Especially compared to what we could have had.

Honourable Deputy of Culture, the second city has just 1 bg, 3 grass and 1 hill in its radius with the rest being desert, and hwen its culture expands it is still rather bad terrain, I completely disagree and feel we should take immediate advantage of the wheat as a potential city to produce solely settlers and workers and the hills to give us a city with high production for our military before settling these deserts.

But any city built solely for the use of the floodplains wheat will result in having only this tile being of worth, making up for an horrible city. Such a city could pump a worker every 4 turns or so, that is true, but that would be the only thing that it could efficiently do. A settler requires 2 population, and 30 shields. Considering that only the flood plains and city tile will produce food, that means that the city will oscillate between 1 and 3 pop, taking eons to reach pop 3 from 2.

But, considering Cyc's idea, i've updated my map to this:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_BC3450_turn12(f_c-mod-b).jpg

You'll notice that I got the numbering out, moved the '2' city spot, and added a city placement that would be able to use the flooded wheat as soon as it is created.

For settling purpose, it would be good to send a warrior up to the North East region.

We could just use the floodpain city as a "worker pit", where its primary function is just to pump out workers. We could later abandon it if the need for more space arrives. We should seriously think about getting those gems before anyone else those. They are a great prize.

Blackheart

Finally a constructive thinker :)

Well, here's my idea. We'd go settle green first, then teal.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/proposal_dotmap_3450_bc.JPG

Epi

Good thought

But let us explore first, so we avoid new blunders. I am done with Nostradamus strategies and telepathic government. But I agree on the main plan, go for goods first.

Fier - I am assuming that there may be a grassland there and if not it is still located next to hills to provide a little production, and Im glad you put a city placement there and I like your plan atm though would prefer the city placmeent directly south of Fanatikku on the coast, and we get the gems immediately SW, but I agree in general.

Well, here's my idea. We'd go settle green first, then teal.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/proposal_dotmap_3450_bc.JPG

If you'll allow me, the Green point will put us horribly backward in the settling race (this spot won't support more than size 2 cities, meaning no settlers).

I agree with Fier here, but we need to explore more before we build, no more guessing.

Well, I think that we should settle on the teal spot first, then to the north somewhere. The gems can wait until we get our settler factories cranking out.

No need to build a city for the diamonds, rather use a road and a colony built by worker, protected by a local fortress. This can also be a future barbarian training ground as this area can hardly sustain a real city. See the military ministry thread for advice on this.

I really feel that we need to jump on those gems. There are a lot of them. They could make us very rich. Assuming we have them. The best way to have them is to build a city there. So I say we do just that. Because of all the surrounding hills, the city would probably have good production, though it might not be very large. We could follow with the teal and then something just over the northern hills, that might be able to get at the wheat flood plain.

Maybe we could just settle it with multiple workers and irrigate those hills, that would solve it, but then we really need Monarchy quick.

We need to claim those gems before enough civ sneaks up on us and plops a city down there. Take a look at the leftmost mountain, I think there is another tile west of that. I would personally explore more to the north and see if we can get a good coastal city down.

BTW Epi, what program did you use to make this map?

Paint. I have a template. :p

I'm in the SW Second City crowd -- the area has more potenial than any mountain city could have, unless supported by a more firtile tiles.

But even so, I say more exporation is need. Definately the South and Southwest should be explored more thoughly. And latter on, we need to scout the north.

Maybe we could just settle it with multiple workers and irrigate those hills, that would solve it, but then we really need Monarchy quick.
Irrigating hills? That sounds like someone's used to C3C!

Noldo

Typo, meant mine

You can't irragate hills at all, unless it's a modpack.

at epimethius proposal, teal isnt bad.. but green has too many mountains and wouldnt grow very good(we need our first 5 cities in optimal spots)

at epimethius proposal, teal isnt bad.. but green has too many mountains and wouldnt grow very good(we need our first 5 cities in optimal spots)

That is why I would suggest before we make any formal decision that we scout north to see what's there. We have another Warrior on the way. If we switch to a Settler now, then we are stuck going only to the sites scouted so far.

You all have your priorities in the wrong place. Who cares if it grows slowly? Who cares if can't churn out settlers? That's not the point. There is more to an economy than having lots of citizens. Gems are worth a lot more than workers. We can trade them for techs, resources, other luxuries, and gold. With just that one city we could get enough to support a whole empire. But it seems people would rather build the empire before finding a viable way to support it. We've got something like six tiles of gems on our doorstep. There is no better location nearby, because they are spread out in a mountain range. If you want them, you'll have to settle there. And for all we know, the Chinese are right over those mountains. We'd be fools not to grab them as fast as possible. The city, with proper mining, could become a production center, and would grow large with time. Our other cities could make up for its lack of food. This not only gets us the gems, but gives us all the land imbetween them to settle later. I would much rather have six gems than a twelve cities full of twelve unhappy citizens.

This is the definition of optimal spot. Teal is crap compared to this.

I agree Epithemus, but ou will never win this argument without an efffective, military style analysis and decision machine that can obliterate this Stevie Wonder foresight with a tangible solution.

I have posted a method on how to make it evident that this solution is the best, but without it, you have to trudge in an emotional and pathological quagmire of accusations, misconceptions, mixed agendas and utter confusion, not to mention
a lack of interest in your findings as people are infatuated with their own ideas.

It took me 15 seconds to realize that this city, I call Yotsubishi, four diamonds, mitsubishi is three diamonds, mitsu countable for three, 15 seconds to see that this city alone would generate almost 20 gold only on the diamonds, plus their luxury value and so on. In addition, there are a river, multiple hills, mountains, so we talk of a massive gold and production center.

Besides, we need to control that mountain range for military reasons, and keep that as out southern boundary in order to capitalize from the 200 % defense bonus, so I assume that will be our Southern border.
I guess that the planet is 3 billion y, warm and dry, judging on the terrain.

I would like 2nd city used for production and 3rd city asap for gems because there are 4 sources and we know what that means. 3rd because we don't want to slow expansion.
Worker - colony is in my opinion very bad idea.

I disagree with you Provolution, if there are greener pastures to the south then let us not limit ourselves because of the mountain range. We could build 2 cities near those gems, one to the NW or NWNW and another by the river hills. It looks like there are plains and a forest to the south, maybe even a desert. Even if this mountain city doesn't grow very large we can use it as a military stronghold.

I think we should decide on an inner and outer set of city locations, and then build the outer ones first and fill in the inner ones later. This way we'll be certain to get the land we want, instead of building the inner one and then watching an opponent build on the outer location before our next settler reaches it.

Translation: go for the gems, try to get all of them. :D

we can always make a colony, a citizen costs less than a city
if we want a good empire in the industrial and modern ages we must have good city sites
the first 10 cities many times make 50% of your income and have 50% of the nations shields and that is all because of the timing and that they were there early

I will bet you there are a lot more than Yotsu diamonds there.

Pbbt. Colony. We have a least four diamond sites. We would waste four workers to get all those rather than one settler. You want income? You want shields? You want an industrial powerhouse for our second city? Because that is what the mountains would give us. This city was made for income and shields. If you want a bunch of large, unproductive settler factories, then by all means, settle teal. Then we'll be able to trade workers to our neighbors for those gems.

You just made a pretty good argument for the exact opposite. ;)

Agreed Blackheart, what i meant ws to go for the diamonds first, whatever the bundle may be. still we need to map the range farther south, so we know where to defend this range.

Building our second city in these mountains is a very bad idea! Remember that city production is exponential, meaning that getting our second city down there will divide our potential settler production by two, untill we build another one, meaning it will be by 4/3, etc.

We cannot afford to send our second city to a non-productive emplacement. However, we could afford way better to send our third one (second settler) there, as the impact would be noticeably smaller.

And, considering the earlyness of the situation, having these gems stolen has a probability very near to zero (i'd even guess that it is something like 1:1x10^-20 or so). The first part of the game is all about settling and exploring.

It's all a question of math. The effect of settling there will go smaller as we found other cities.

I think that by the time we have a settler in place to build the city, we will have scouted far enough afield to know whether we need to make a land grab for the Yotsubishi range. If there are any other civs close by, then we will need to make certain that the range is within our domain.

Daveshack, I agree with the containment plan, we need to place our exterior cities first, so we do not get a Balkanized border of mixed ethnicities like the Yugoslavs, who seemed to receive a lot pf problems to mixed settlements. For security reasons, that is a doctrinal shift I back you up 100 % Dave. Good job. We need to occupy those 4 diamonds asap, as I know the AI goes for luxury spots like that at once.

I think we should decide on an inner and outer set of city locations, and then build the outer ones first and fill in the inner ones later. This way we'll be certain to get the land we want, instead of building the inner one and then watching an opponent build on the outer location before our next settler reaches it.

Translation: go for the gems, try to get all of them. :D

A very sound tactic. Block in the other guy's expansion path. This tends to lead to small wars though.

Who named those mountain ranges and is there a map with all the terrain names?

Who named those mountain ranges and is there a map with all the terrain names?

I just used Provo's hypothetical city name from one of the posts above.

I think we should decide on an inner and outer set of city locations, and then build the outer ones first and fill in the inner ones later. This way we'll be certain to get the land we want, instead of building the inner one and then watching an opponent build on the outer location before our next settler reaches it.

Translation: go for the gems, try to get all of them. :D

I again must disagree. I still believe we should send our Settler 3 tiles to the South and plant him on that hill. Build a Warrior there follwed by a Temple and you not only expand borders to include the Diamond, but you establish early Culture. With the surrounding tiles, Settler production is very possible. One thing that is also important is that is will not interfere with Fanatikku's growth/production for a long time (if at all), plus there will be no shield loss as the city will be so close to the Capital (at least until much later in the game). It establishes early growth, early culture, secures a diamond, will have unbeatable production (except fot the capital), will take advantage of all the surrounding tiles, and establishes us in the South. We can go for the other diamonds with a city to the south of that.

I again must disagree. I still believe we should send our Settler 3 tiles to the South and plant him on that hill. Build a Warrior there follwed by a Temple and you not only expand borders to include the Diamond, but you establish early Culture. With the surrounding tiles, Settler production is very possible. One thing that is also important is that is will not interfere with Fanatikku's growth/production for a long time (if at all), plus there will be no shield loss as the city will be so close to the Capital (at least until much later in the game). It establishes early growth, early culture, secures a diamond, will have unbeatable production (except fot the capital), will take advantage of all the surrounding tiles, and establishes us in the South. We can go for the other diamonds with a city to the south of that.

I was trying to set a goal for the "what" (get all the gems) without trying to solve the "how" in that level of detail. However, the alternative would be to put city #2 near the gems and then build city #3 near the location you're suggesting. It would be nice to know what lies beyond the mountain range so that a good plan can be formulated.

Well, just so you know, I've posted a map showing the location. If you're considering placing a city due West of this site (on the coast), you'll have to due a lot of building to take advantage of a harbor. You'll aslo lose a lot of growth potential. It will also take an extra turn to get there. :) If you're considering moving one tile to the East, you'll lose the diamond.

If you're considering going deeper South to get more diamonds, you'll waste a lot of time getting there, lose shields to corruption, and have very minimal growth.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/city_prop1.jpg
Correction: The tile N, NE of the city should read 2+1+1.

From what I see, there is some really great discussion going, but I'm afraid it must be cut short. We have a turnchat in 26 hours, so I'm afraid I must get polling started now.

If we go 10 turns, are we actually going to get a Settler this tc? If not, then the discussion is moot, because we'll have a lot more explored by the time we do and can make a better decision.

Comnenius, we get a settler in 2 turns.

Comnenius, we get a settler in 2 turns.

I know I just got up and have a lot of reading to catch up on, but I wasn't aware that we decided to change production to a settler. The screenie I've got from t12 shows warrior in 2.

Well, we stopped the TC, prior to T15, at T12, since we had to decide on shifting that to a settler in time. But I would prefer people to post the proposal in the City Proposal Thread, we grade and comment the proposal, and let Noldodan pick the two best and poll them, there is no need for this chaotic multipolling we have seen before.

This is true, Comnenus. A Warrior in two turns. Although one of the reasons given for stopping the last Turn Chat was to consider changing production from a Warrior to a Settler, the Leader or Leaders who should have initiated the discussion failed to do so. This can be seen as said Leaders determining the Will of the People (WOTP) on their own without any input. This will probably be a constant problem throughout the game, as some feel they don't need the input from fledglings that elected them to Office. By not starting discussion on a topic, they can determine the outcome without much resistance.

Cyc

It seems that the economized version of the Ringi system will fly, and it will not fail as Fien Canadien mentioned, as this place accountability where it belongs.
This will also assure more transparency and participation.

Cyc, as you are so good with screenies and city localization, why not try your hand on reposting that screenie under the city proposal thread, with the tile values and considerations on how this city should be used, with reference to the
departments you deem they involve. Remember, the grading within the Judiciary will be the average between the three of you, and your own comments to your own proposal will be part of the public posting.

Yet, if that city location you mentioned is the best, the arguments will carry it.