City 6, sechs, seis, sex, six...

Sommerswerd

Shades of the Sun
Supporter
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
23,529
Location
Murica
This the land where our sixth city will be...
Spoiler :

We have two settlers currently under construction, so we need to get the discussion going on the placement of this city.

We need ideas for location and a name for the city. Two ideas enter... One idea leaves!!! Can you digg it?:cool:
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0005.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0005.JPG
    154.3 KB · Views: 482
  • Civ4ScreenShot0006.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0006.JPG
    129.6 KB · Views: 463
1) Iron city on the tundra spot (NE of fish) - Atyrau (Caspian sea coastal city)

2) Gold city on the grassland NW of Gold - Shymkent (Most upstream city on the Syr Darya river that is located in Kazakhstan)
 
The iron city should be on the hill S of the iron IMO. Getting the iron quicker is more important than growing the city, working the mined iron will also mean we can quickly get a Granary.
 
The iron city should be on the hill S of the iron IMO. Getting the iron quicker is more important than growing the city, working the mined iron will also mean we can quickly get a Granary.

Thats an interesting point...we get fur and immidiate access to iron...but we lose 3 sea tiles and have 9 instead of 12 total...hmm, lets think anout this...
 
I think Kaleb is right. It would still be a decent city, and getting the iron ASAP should be our priority.
We can found a gold/corn city to the north later.
 
It would be good to do some exploring 1st - it might be hard to found a decent corn/gold city with all those mountains.

Also if we are going to build the national wonder that gives water tiles +1 production - we really should try to maximize the amount of water for the city.

If we bring along the missionary I think we will get iron fast enough.

Also getting fish right away from a WB built in Aktua would let the city grow really fast.

course we could also switch to CS and run a artist - but i think that is not a great idea.
 
I say we go for tundra spot if we plan for Moai Statues there.
 
we lose 3 tiles not 1 + the dead pundra tile

3 water tiles in total, but only 1 coastal tile. The ocean squares will only be 2:food:1:hammers:1:commerce: with Moai so nothing worth crying about.

On the hill we get (with Lighthouse and Moai):
1 Coastal Fish (6:food:1:hammers:3:commerce:)
6 Coastal Tiles (2:food:1:hammers:3:commerce:)
2 Ocean Tiles (2:food:1:hammers:1:commerce:)
3 Plains (1:food:1:hammers: unimproved)
4 Grassland (2:food: unimproved) 3 w/forest
1 Grassland Hill w/1 Iron (1:food:5:hammers:)
2 Tundra Hill 1 w/Fur 1 w/forest
1 Tundra

On the tundra we get (with Lighthouse and Moai):
Coastal Fish
7 Coastal Tiles
5 Ocean Tiles
4 Plains
1 Grassland w/forest
1 Grassland Hill w/1 Iron
1 Tundra Hill

So the main thing we gain with the tundra spot is 1 Coastal tile and lots more Ocean tiles and a plain. Maoi is best when you have coastal tiles to use.
 
as for names, for what it's worth,

Almaty (the capital), Karagandy, and Shymkent are some of the biggest cities in Kazakhstan.

I personally like Shymkent-- just rolls off the tongue :)

EDIT:
From Wikipedia:

Shymkent was founded in the 12th century as a caravanserai to protect the Silk Road town of Sayram, 10km to the east. Shymkent grew as a market center for trade between nomads and the settled people. It was destroyed several times: by Genghis Khan, soldiers from the souther Khanates, and by nomad attacks. Once part of the Khanate of Kokand, it became part of the Emirate of Bukhara in 1810 and was then annexed by the Russian Empire in 1864. It was renamed Chernyaev in 1914 and renamed Chimkent in 1924.

The name of the city came from two words, Shym meaning turf, and Kent meaning city. Shymkent and Chimkent have identical translations in Kazakh and Uzbek, respectively.

After Kazakhstan gained independence, the city was renamed to its original name Shymkent in 1993 as part of the government’s campaign to apply Kazakh names to cities. This created an ambiguity in the city's name in the Russian language. (The formal spelling of Шымкент (Shymkent) as codified in Kazakhstan's Constitution goes against the Russian spelling rules of never having the letter ы follow the letter ш. As a result, the new name Шымкент (Shymkent) is used only in Kazakhstan, while Russia and some other countries using Russian language keep using the original Uzbek spelling Чимкент (Chimkent).
 
I think we could call the corn-gold city Almaty as it's in a spot where we might want to relocate our capital to later... or perhaps we could just rename it to Almaty (if and) when we decide to move the capital there
 
1) Iron city on the tundra spot (NE of fish) - Atyrau (Caspian sea coastal city)

2) Gold city on the grassland NW of Gold - Shymkent (Most upstream city on the Syr Darya river that is located in Kazakhstan)

I agree with both. I could also go for Almaty for the commerce city but Atyrau is perfect for the fish city.
 
@ Kaleb...city 6 on hill is a better overall city as it will have some more cottages as well...but then the other city to the west will be worst...

I am Ok with both options hill or tundra, both have plus and minuses.
 
This will be a long game, so there is no need to have wasteful practices on the tilegrid. Oskemen was bad enough as we lost 2 tiles there. In principle, each and every single tile should be used, and each city specialized. I would also like to see the gold-fur city to be a specialized commerce city with no detractions.
 
Definitely the Iron, so we have a choice between two tiles. I am leaning towards the tundra spot due to the fact that we can get anothr good city to the west and thus it would be btter to get that spot.
 
@ Kaleb...city 6 on hill is a better overall city as it will have some more cottages as well...but then the other city to the west will be worst...
We're not really taking much off from the city spot further west. All we would be really missing out on is a few ocean tiles, which really aren't that great even with Moai.

This will be a long game, so there is no need to have wasteful practices on the tilegrid. Oskemen was bad enough as we lost 2 tiles there. In principle, each and every single tile should be used, and each city specialized. I would also like to see the gold-fur city to be a specialized commerce city with no detractions.
A tile is only 'lost' if the city has a real hope of being able to use the tile. Simply having a tile in a BFC doesn't help you unless the city will have enough food to be able to work the tile. The only tile we 'lost' with Osk is the grassland river tile.
 
I think the debate was settled with regards to location of city 6. warrior Bushir found a blue whale near gold and furs, which requires city six to be on the southern tundra, for us to settle another commercial city between the fur, gold and the whale. If we settle south of iron, we can forget about the nice blue whale we would have.
The spotting of that whale changes very little!!

The 3rd Gold city will need to go 1NE of the Gold so the whale can come in the cultural borders after 2 borders pops so we get +1 happiness. It's not worth trying to get it in our BFC.
I agree with :king:. Also whales are not a particularly valuable (1:food:) resource, they take too long to be able to improve (Optics) and then they become obsolete. I dont think we should found a city based on the presence of whales.
 
I for one still want to see Herviov's dotmap. I think neccessity will dictate city 6 on the tundra hill. But settling cities is a pretty big deal so nothing wrong with looking at the potential city grid for that entire western area. We have plenty of time still before the settler gets to the region.
I agree.:) We will wait until :king: or Cavscout or NECESSITY forces a poll on the next city location. We will wait another 48 hours for the city 6 location poll. Hopefully this is acceptable to all team-mates...:goodjob:
 
Top Bottom