A small reason not to move starting settler

[Wodan]

Here's my analysis of the commerce for having your capitol inland (with Towns) vs Coastal. It got to be pretty dang long, so I made a new thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152408

Wodan

 

[Jarrod32]

This is a good discussion...many valid points. I'm gonna toss another point of consideration into the original question, of whether to take a turn to move your settler.

If you start with mysticism, and want to found a religion, that turn you take moving your settler could potentially be the difference (one less turn of research) of founding the early religion or not. Just another consideration...

 

[Jantis]

Actually, despite everything I've said, I tend to agree somewhat with you Jantis.

Honestly, I think there's value in both our viewpoints. Depends a lot on the situation.

You're right. We just disagree on what our preferred method of playing is. There certainly is potential value in both approaches, and it really boils down into each person trying it for themselves and see which way Lady Luck tends to bless them.

I admit that I've moved my starting position before, and had varied success. It just seems... for me... that I just haven't seen enough of an overall benefit to moving. Sometimes it is obvious when your starting position is great or not-so-great, but most likely the largest majority of the time it's a toss-up.

But some of the most humor I've gotten from this board is when folks seem adamant that their way is the only (effective) way. I don't see either of us are saying that, just that we prefer different benefits in our playstyle. And that's what this game seems to really encourage - differing playstyles.

/salute Wodan

It's nice to be able to disagree without seeing any fires started.



P.S. Nuke toting monkeys will solve any problems.

 

[Wodan]

If you start with mysticism, and want to found a religion, that turn you take moving your settler could potentially be the difference (one less turn of research) of founding the early religion or not. Just another consideration...

Yep, definitely true.

Of course, if that's your goal, then you have a lot of other constraints, too. e.g., you can't build a worker (you need to grow to pop 2 asap to get added beakers).

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

But some of the most humor I've gotten from this board is when folks seem adamant that their way is the only (effective) way. I don't see either of us are saying that, just that we prefer different benefits in our playstyle. And that's what this game seems to really encourage - differing playstyles.

/salute Wodan

It's nice to be able to disagree without seeing any fires started.

P.S. Nuke toting monkeys will solve any problems.

Heh. Absolutely. Actually, I consider myself still learning this game. That, to me, is what makes CIV much better than CIII as well as many other games. There appears to be endless variety of strategies. None better than the other. They all have pros and cons.

What I enjoy the most is exploring a new strategy. I don't really get a kick out of perfecting one method of play and then playing that game over and over and over. Blech. Even simply changing Leaders but keeping the same strategy, fundamentally is kind of boring.

Wodan

 

[Jarrod32]

Yep, definitely true.

Of course, if that's your goal, then you have a lot of other constraints, too. e.g., you can't build a worker (you need to grow to pop 2 asap to get added beakers).

Wodan

Absolutely. Different goal, different set of criteria...and a different analysis (and different conclusion) from the same information.

Like you just said...many options, and the beauty of this game.

 

[PugFugly]

Yep, definitely true.

Of course, if that's your goal, then you have a lot of other constraints, too. e.g., you can't build a worker (you need to grow to pop 2 asap to get added beakers).

Wodan

But you CAN build a workboat, if you are Isabella.

 

[Thalassicus]

Or British.