3rd town: flood plains or desert?

[Calis]

This poll is to decide, whether our third town should be founded directly on the flood plains (as in the pic below, yellow town), or on a desert tile, like SW of the flood plains.

.

So the options are:

1. flood plains (due to river (+commerce, no aquaduct necessary).

or

2. desert (no waste of a food rich flood plains and best use of a desert tile).

or

3. other proposal (please write in the thread)

 

[Bowsling]

I voted for the desert. The city will be a worker pump, so the river isn't necessary, but the extra flood plain could be quite helpful.

 

[Chamnix]

My vote will likely be going to flood plains unless someone convinces me otherwise. The river is worth 1 extra commerce per turn immediately, plus 100 shields for an aqueduct, plus 1 gpt aqueduct maintenance. We have enough flood plains that I don't mind settling on one. In fact, with all those flood plains, long-term we may end up liking the 2 shields provided by a mined desert more than we would like another high food tile.

 

[Cyc]

Desert. Not using a desert tile in this situation is like planting a city 1 tile off the coast. It's a waste. Plus, with this city being a mega-food city, we don't want it going beyond size 6 at will because it will just become a happiness problem. Plus, being so close to the capital, once we get some mines built around it, building a Granary would take no time at all. It's a Worker pump and we're going to have about a gazillion Workers, so long range planning is really a long way off.

 

[Chamnix]

IMO, we will want all of our core cities to reach size 12 eventually. There is no such thing as a happiness problem in a high-food city - just add a scientist.

I also don't believe that city is likely to build a granary - it just does not have the shields since the capital needs the BGs. I think a worker every 4 turns without a granary will be its goal.

 

[Cyc]

I meant building an Aquaduct, not a Granary.

 

[EvilConqueror]

My vote will likely be going to flood plains unless someone convinces me otherwise. The river is worth 1 extra commerce per turn immediately, plus 100 shields for an aqueduct, plus 1 gpt aqueduct maintenance. We have enough flood plains that I don't mind settling on one. In fact, with all those flood plains, long-term we may end up liking the 2 shields provided by a mined desert more than we would like another high food tile.

Aye. Settling on the flood plains does not bother me in this situation.

Voted for flood plains.

 

[Sparthage]

If the city is to be a worker pump, then I think that getting good use out of a desert tile would be nice. If not, then flood plains is a better option.

 

[Chamnix]

A 0/2 tile is more useful to a city in that location than a sixth 4/0 tile would be. I think it might be better to settle on the flood plains even without considering the commerce and aqueduct advantages. The fact that those exist also make it a clear choice.

 

[Bowsling]

But there are three possible 0/2 tiles, even by settling on the desert, which is more than the flood plains can support and expect a fast growing city.

 

[Calis]

Hm, who will decide in case of a draw: the turn player?

 

[Cyc]

Hm, who will decide in case of a draw: the turn player?

I would imagine the Team Captain.

 

[Chamnix]

Who is our Team Captain for the month of February?

 

[Cyc]

I would imagine that as we haven't had elections yet, it's still the same Team Captain as in January.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I'd rather see an analysis of the various sites, to be honest. For instance, yellow dot is on an FP, and it has some advantages, such as a riverside plains tile that can either be mined for 2 shields on growth or irrigated for a consistent shield.

To get 4 turn workers without a granary, we will need 5 extra food (3 fp), plus an extra shield plus a 2 shield extra tile (which can be a mined desert), so size 4 with an extra tile.

To get to size 4 will take 7+5+4+4 = 20 turns = 24 shields (16 at 1 shield, 4 at 2). We could, probably, whip the granary when at size 4, if we wanted, but I'm not sure we could get better than 4 turn workers anyway, because we won't have shields. Of course, a worker pump with a granary will recover faster if we get hit with the plague.

While I agree with Chamnix that our core cities should get to size 12, I'm ok with tearing down a worker farm and relocating it later if that's the most efficient way of doing it.

So - how do we set up a worker farm on each of the desert tiles in question? is it more efficient than on the yellow dot FP? How does it affect the other cities?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

There are, i think, 4 desert spots for a worker pump. Maybe one of these is an FP, I dunno.

1 SW of yellow dot
2 SW of yellow dot
1 S of yellow dot
1 S of orange dot

2 of these aren't suitable at all - 1S of orange dot cuts off coastal sites, and 2 SE of yellow dot has no FP's available, so isn't a good warrior pump, anyway.

1SW of yellow dot only has access to 2 FP (without a cultural expansion or another city), so can't build 4 turn workers without help. Has to use a mined grass (which takes longer than an irrigated plain) for a shield.

1S has 3 FP, but still has to mine grass.


I think one of the desert sites has to be CLEARLY better as a worker pump to offset the extra commerce, and I don't think any of them are. I'm voting for the FP site.

 

[CommandoBob]

I'm okay with building on Yellow Dot.

I think we have too many Flood Plains near the core. They are great for science farms out in the boonies, but here one or two would have been better than six. They will help us grow our cities faster, but we will still need to produce shields to make that growth work for us.

 

[Cyc]

Again a weak majority, but still a majority. Glad we have 10 active players.