Term 2 - Domestic Consul - Expanding the Horizon

Ginger_Ale

Ginger_Ale

Lurker
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
8,802
Location
Red Sox Nation
YNCS: As a previous deputy in a governor position in DG5, I knew that I liked to be involved in the office, rather than just do nothing. If there is anything that you think could have your involvement, please tell me. A deputy should be an assistant, not a backup position. I want to get you involved. For the next turnchat, if you would like, you can take over the reigns and post discussions, polls, and instructions - ok? :)

Everyone: The first discussion is now up in the Citizen's forum.
 
Consul,

I have asked for the scheduled 1 turn turnchat to be delayed. I need to speak with the Governor urgently. Unfortunately, the governor has not opened his government thread as of yet, and nor has he opened any discussion threads pertaining to his office.

Since I cannot contact him then I must direct my concerns to you. I print below the open letter which is intended for the governor.

Governor,

having inspected the save it would appear that the actions of the Governor conflict with government policy. In particular, conflicts exist between build queue setting and the External Consulates policy. As you may be aware, the External Consulate is (for the moment) committing our nation to a war on or before 700BC. In order to achieve this it is necessary to build veteran warriors and chariots in order to upgrade them, since building swordsmen from scratch takes to long. Furthermore, regular troops will effectively reduce our fighting strength by 25% and reduce our chances of generating a great leader.

My second point is this. Our capital city can no longer run as a warrior/settler combination factory, since it has been connected to a source of iron. Our best city has in effect been destroyed.

Please consider the following actions in order govenment policy is given some chance of succeeding.

1. Do not allow the connection of Bentley to a road system.
2. Change the build in Bentley from regular warrior to Barracks.
3. Change the build in the town north of our Capital (can't remember the name - sorry) from regular sword to Granary.
4. Change all other sword builds to chariot.
5. Bentley should build only vet warriors after the barracks is completed.

The city with the new granary can then be run as a four turn settler factory and our capital can be used as a unit factory.

None of this is intended as a personal criticism BTW. I just want to make sure that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet for the next few turnsets so that the upcoming wars will be successful.

I have asked for the single turn play session scheduled for tomorrow to be delayed so that these issues can be adequately addressed.

Finally, congratulations on your recent appointment and welcome to government. :)

faithfully yours,

mad-bax
External Consul.
Click to expand...
 
Dear Counsul,

Early in Term 1 there was some discussion that because our capital is so poorly located that at some point in the game we may want to consider moving it. Under Vanilla/PTW this would be a no-brainer; the Conquests’ city ranking system and corruption calculator make a move less attractive, and I have no experience of moving my capital under the current patch. However, if we are to move our capital we’d be likely to do so sometime in Term 2. I am not at this time proposing we actually move our capital; I am suggesting that this might make an interesting topic for discussion. Since this subject concerns “long term city development objectives,” I believe this is part of your mandate. A related discussion might concern our strategy for where to locate our Forbidden Palace.

Also, at some point in the game we may elect to adopt a strategy of Infinite City Sprawl in order to better realize our strategy of achieving a 130,000 cultural victory. In fact I support such a strategy, and there have been some discussions about this in some of the cultural threads. An official discussion about this, with a poll to establish the will of the people, might be desirable and I believe this also is under your mandate. Also, as we plan our general expansion we may want to consider that for much of our empire we will be filling in spaces between cities with yet more cities (squeezing in as many as possible) should we adopt ICS as a strategy. I suggest we anticipate this as we formulate our long term city settlement plans.

Thanks for your consideration.
 
I agree Bertie. Coastal capitals, while fine in the short run, can hurt corruption-wise. If we do move the palace, I wouldn't move it more than a couple cities away so our current core cities stay core cities. Once we get 14 cities I will put up a discussion regarding the FP, Palace moving, and ICS-pattern for 130k - that would be an achivement!
 
Dear Consul Ginger-Ale,

Have you any plans to discuss the government we want to switch to, and the timing of a switch? The External Consul has been talking about delaying a switch until any early military operations are completed. We also need to consider the results of tech pace decisions on when the government techs will be available. Your continued participation in those discussions would help enormously in keeping our various plans synched up.
 
Hi Consul, :)

Forgive the informal greeting. I just saw your instructions for the turnchat for 19th April. Couldn't help but suck air through my teeth when I saw you instruct the DOI to group workers in threes for 1 turn roads. She (the DOI) believes this to be best practice too - I asked her in the nomination thread.

I disagree, and would like to explain why. Pretty simple really.

To road a grass tile (say) with one worker takes four turns. One to move onto the tile and 3 turns to road. To road a tile with 3 workers takes 6 turns. 3 worker moves and 3 road turns. Although you get the road in two turns you actually end up using more worker time. Consider around 2000 roaded tiles, and a lot of them will be hills and mountains and jungle etc. By the end of the game you will have wasted about 5000 worker turns. Painful huh?
I recommend roading tiles with single workers - and the same can be said for chopping too. Stack workers for mining and irrigating of course. It becomes obvious then that you should road first and then make any other improvement afterwards. You have to stack for clearing jungles and marsh of course otherwise you wouldn't get the job done by the end of the game, and sometimes you absolutely have to have the road that turn early. But generally speaking, stacking to road is bad.

Will you tell CT or shall I? :D
 
Oooh, let me answer this one!

Except for special circumstances, 3-worker stacks for 1 turn roads are better than 1-worker stacks for three 3 turn roads. Why? A city can only use 1 tile at a time - it's better to fully improve 1 tile in, say, 3 turns, than 3 tiles in 6 turns or so - improve the tiles one by one, at the pace of the city. Anything else IS a waste, as the city won't be able to use those worker turns until it grows, and meanwhile it'll have one worker mining, rather than 3 mining to get it done in 2 turns, rather than 6.

The debate of workers - it never ends. :)

Please tell CT, though I am confident she'll disagree with your argument away too!
 
Sir Domestic Consul,
I would like to point out a second shortcoming in your orders regarding workers to road tiles. You have not accounted for Slaves. Should these be in stacks of 6 (we currently have 7)?

I also agree with M-B on the worker turns issue. At this point our cities are no longer growing and the worker turns saved roading tiles would be a real long term benefit with no short term production cost.

Also, In Term 1 Domestic Policy this was discussed and noone spoke out against using single workers for roading tiles. I don't believe this has been discussed during term 2. Would you consider opening discussion on long-term Infrastructure goals and methods?
 
Ginger_Ale said:
Why? A city can only use 1 tile at a time - it's better to fully improve 1 tile in, say, 3 turns, than 3 tiles in 6 turns or so - improve the tiles one by one, at the pace of the city. Anything else IS a waste, as the city won't be able to use those worker turns until it grows, and meanwhile it'll have one worker mining, rather than 3 mining to get it done in 2 turns, rather than 6.
Click to expand...
But there are unimproved tiles being used, so we want to use the workers to improve all of them as efficiently as possible, not one tile at a time as quickly as possible.
 
Consul Ginger Ale,

I've asked the Cultural Consul to give me an estimate of the number of cities we'll need in order to achieve our cultural victory. This information would help the External Consulate plan how much territory we will need to annex, and thus which civs we should target. Your input on this would be very useful as well, particularly regarding how much territory you think we'll need in order to settle the number of cities the Cultural Consul requires for his plans.

Thanks!
 
I'm sticking with my proposal of around 12 tiles per city. This allows cities to have no need for hospitals. Alternatively, we could do CxxxC and fill it in with CxCxC (ICS) for more culture later.

An estimate of cities is very hard to include doubling, different culture amounts, etc. It's best just to take over the pangea.
 
Ginger_Ale said:
<snip> It's best just to take over the pangea.
Click to expand...

I agree that that is the best long term policy, but I still think it would be good to have some idea of how much land is minimally required. The culture consul estimates we'll need 100 to 200 cities. Do you think you could provide an estimate, perhaps a map, indicating what area will accommodate that many cities? Maybe for 100, 150, and 200 cities.

I think even a rough indication would already be very helpful at this moment.
 
zyxy said:
I agree that that is the best long term policy, but I still think it would be good to have some idea of how much land is minimally required. The culture consul estimates we'll need 100 to 200 cities. Do you think you could provide an estimate, perhaps a map, indicating what area will accommodate that many cities? Maybe for 100, 150, and 200 cities.

I think even a rough indication would already be very helpful at this moment.
Click to expand...

Actually, what is needed depends on the size of the map. We need 65.9% of the map and fill that with as many cities we can fit. Depending on if this is a high or low domination limit map will mean close to 100 and a high limit will mean closer to 200.
 
It looks like the domination limit might be about 1500 tiles, and if going extreme ICS for all but the core could end up with a city density of around 6 tiles/city. 250 Cities would be my target.

Also since there is no Tundra, but plenty of desert my preference would be to conquer the entire map and allow puppet regimes to eke and existience out in the deserts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
25K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
Crezth
In the Beginning Was Napoleon: Background Thread
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Traveller76
Traveller76
TerrisH
Out of the Portals, a Never Ending Story.
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
13K
J.A.M.
J.A.M.
The_J
An interview with the Humankind beta-testers from Civfanatics
Replies
16
Views
4K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
knighterrant81
Civ VI early game guide for the Decidedly Average (feedback welcome!)
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
116K
riddleofsteel
riddleofsteel
Back
Top Bottom