Is this game winnable

Dr. D said:

Not sure where you're getting at with either of those points.

First, I'm pretty sure you'll find the majority of people will say that spacing cities six (much less seven) tiles apart is unnecessarily far... the likelihood of working all of those tiles is extremely minimal and that's assuming you've filled up all your specialist slots. Yes, bunching several cities together three tiles apart is likely a bad idea, but sometimes it's necessary to put cities that close to grab certain resources.

Secondly, you might want to take another look at the screenshots provided... the only city not on the coast is Moscow and it's hard to fault the OP from settling in place with that start.



Back to the original topic, I think this map is a classic case in which there sometimes aren't ideal places to settle. Moscow really is in a fantastic spot, but given that this is an island and there aren't really many other consensus no-brainer settling spots, this map was generated to frustrate anyone who starts in this location.

Click to expand...

I like to try and space my cities out so that I can cover the maximum amount of land with a minimum amount of cities. 2 super producing 30 citizen cities are better than 4 cities on top of each other that over lap tiles as soon as they're settled and never get past 10 citizens.

The placement is bad because there's no land route from his capital to st pete. This is especially bad because his capital is not on the coast so he can't even reinforce the city with a navy. I don't understand what's hard to miss about isolating your first city from the capital being a bad thing. If he was playing anything other than prince, that indefensible city would already be gone.

You originally didn't say anything about the OP having an isolated city, you said he settled like the AI by putting a city one tile away from the coastline. That clearly isn't the case.

The isolated city part is clear to anyone thinking about a defensible territory in the first 100 turns. I'm enlightening the op on why it's important, so that when he graduates to higher difficulties he will have a headstart. This is a pointless conversation, seriously go troll someone else.

I'm not here to troll anyone and based on how defensive your replies are, I'm sorry you felt attacked. I was solely pointing out that, for the OP's sake, it was uncalled for when you made fun of the OPs settling pattern with the reasons you gave. You gave your opinion about why you like extra space for your cities, and that's fine, to each his own, and for the sake of discussion I'm glad you explained yourself even if I disagree. That's what makes discussing strategies fun and can help each of us improve our own game.

Unfortunately, rather than taking the high road and admit you unjustly accused the OP of settling away from the coastline with your condescending "Oh look coast! I'll just settle my city one tile inland" jab (something the OP clearly didn't do) you've instead gone on and on about isolated cities which I don't disagree with you about and I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me about it. I never said anything in favor or against isolated cities, so yes, from that perspective, you're right, it is a pointless conversation because you're arguing with yourself.

Quite simply, I didn't like seeing the OP unjustly accused of something he didn't do. Nothing more, nothing less.

I also see you're new to the forums within the last month, so a bit of advice: do try to be civil in your discussions and don't accuse others of trolling... that'll get you in trouble. I'm just here for good-natured discussion, I'm surely not here looking to get in fights. Sorry you took offense to anything I said. In the spirit of the forums, let's get back to the topic at hand. Yes, I still think this is winnable and I might have to take a crack at playing it this weekend.

beetle said:

Great, I want justification for playing this map with that spot for my cap! [I think you mean warrior (not worker)?]

Click to expand...

Yes, I do, my warrior.

A justification can be it's an isolated continents. You need Astronomy to meet other civs. And it will be hard to have 3 cities without happiness resources (wonders or beliefs).
Frigates will make the job for a domination game except for one civ in my game.

Humantorch said:

I like to try and space my cities out so that I can cover the maximum amount of land with a minimum amount of cities.

Click to expand...

I have started placing my cities closer, 4 or 5 tiles instead of 5, 6, or 7. It helps a lot with religious pressure. I try to have no more than 10 tiles between any two cities. But especially with an island start, things are cramped. Three tiles is too close though, especially to cap, I would almost never do that.

The placement is bad because there's no land route from his capital to st pete.

Click to expand...

It should be straightforward to prioritize keeping Quebec City as an ally. The only trick is getting the road in before all the CS tiles are spammed with units.

Humantorch said:

If he was playing anything other than prince, that indefensible city would already be gone.

Click to expand...

Game is Immortal. Given the map, St. Petersburg is more than okay. City is on hill and only two tiles exposed to melee water attack, and Moscow is close enough to support with air and ground units. It is more than sufficiently defensible. The city also has three fish, so no problem working all four hills all game long. No unique lux, but one can’t expect everything. It’s a nice spot.

Dr. D said:

You said he settled like the AI by putting a city one tile away from the coastline.

Click to expand...

I understood the comment to be in reference to how close Novgorod is to the capital. The cap being one tile from the coast was mostly bad luck, and the RNG being evil.

Memoryjar said:

A justification can be it's an isolated continents. You need Astronomy to meet other civs. And it will be hard to have 3 cities without happiness resources (wonders or beliefs).

Click to expand...

I get that, but that’s not the kind of justification I was looking for!

The starting location was a nasty trick, since with continents there’s a fair chance of not being near the coast, so I understand OP SIP. I would just like to believe I would have explored for a turn and gotten lucky. You gave me rationalization enough for that belief, so thanks very much! This map will be tons more fun to play if Moscow is not land-locked.

Humantorch said:

I like to try and space my cities out so that I can cover the maximum amount of land with a minimum amount of cities. 2 super producing 30 citizen cities are better than 4 cities on top of each other that over lap tiles as soon as they're settled and never get past 10 citizens.

The placement is bad because there's no land route from his capital to st pete. This is especially bad because his capital is not on the coast so he can't even reinforce the city with a navy. I don't understand what's hard to miss about isolating your first city from the capital being a bad thing. If he was playing anything other than prince, that indefensible city would already be gone.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you said "6-7 tiles between cities" earlier. 6 is the greatest distance required so that no workable tiles overlap between them. And sometimes it really isn't necessary. If they're 5 tiles away from each other, it's going to be a long time before they have to compete for tiles.

As for "if he was playing anything other than prince, that indefensible city would already be gone", no, it wouldn't. Because he's on an island by himself and he hasn't even met anyone yet, he doesn't have to worry about defense as much.