ALC Game 21: Zulus/Shaka

[civ4legs]

A settler move 1N would keep both the unforested 'possible resource' tiles in the fat-x, and possibly add some nice rivered tiles. The scout move will make it much clearer.

...waits =P

You're right that it wouldn't block any of the possible resources, but you are giving up 3 guaranteed non-(desert/peak/tundra/ice) for 3 that you can't see that could be anything, as well as costing a turn. We're on a river to start already, otherwise that would have been a compelling reason to consider moving...

 

[Winston Hughes]

settle in place. this tile 3N1E seems to be coast. settling 1 tile off the cost is a big no-no.
and 3N might be desert..

It could be a single-tile lake, not that that has anything to recommend it here...

But if it is coast, we may have started in a very bad place - a narrow strip of land running between the sea and the edge of the map.

When I was researching these maps, I saw a couple of civs that started in that kind of spot. Their expansion options really sucked, especially when compared to civs starting near the centre of the map.

The one advantage, for what it's worth, would be easier defence against barbs.

We'll know soon enough (assuming Sis doesn't wait for another three pages of pre-settlement discussion ).

 

[Pe Ell]

*gasp*

He's moved the scout already?

I see no reason to lose a turn while moving. Floodplains and wheat will be plenty of food and there's hills and forest for production.

 

[Carabodes]

Apart from the fact that moving 1N will give you an extra grassland hill, consider the empact of levees. Settling in place, the levee will give you rivertile hammers for the smallest river only. Moving 1N the levee will probably work on both rivers, and thus practically doubling the amount of rivertile hammers.

 

[IagoAlberto]

I'm pretty sure that levees grant you the extra hammer on all riverside tiles in the city's BFC. So settle in place this looks like a good spot for a capital. Although if that is the inland sea and we have tundra to the south and desert to the north it could be like a start I recently had with a good capital BFC on a peninsula with exclusively ice and tundra

 

[johnny_rico]

Two rivers is pretty nice. Drop the settler, build a scout, grow to 2, build a worker. Farm, chop, whip, kill!!!

Use your scouts to find ponies, bronze, and victims.

 

[Artichoker]

Looks like we should settle in place. We have a Wheat, good river squares, good tree squares, and some flood plains.

 

[davy_hall]

I also vote settle in place. Moving just seems like too much risk for minimal potential gain. I don't see anything really bad about this starting location or anything really obviously good about any prospective move. Losing a turn to move when you don't know for sure that it's an upgrade seems like a poor choice.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I vote settle in place too. At this rate, we may see the 2nd turn before page 10, amazing

 

[d.a.oconnell]

Settle in place... As for levees, I don't think Shaka wants to wait that long

 

[DrJambo]

Settle in of course. There's bound to be some more goodies hidden.

No use taking the gamble and then potentially having to move back wasting two turns!

 

[civ4legs]

Settling in place, the levee will give you rivertile hammers for the smallest river only. Moving 1N the levee will probably work on both rivers, and thus practically doubling the amount of rivertile hammers.

Without going in-game to verify, I am quite certain that this is not the case: the levees will affect all river-side tiles, regardless of which river is next to the capitol. I will happily retract this statement if shown otherwise, but I don't think it's something we need to worry about.

Any worldbuilders out there care to check this?

 

[Daedal]

Wow..that's got to be the most unexciting starting location I've seen in a while. I'm pretty certain those non-forested tiles around the starting location are hidden strategic resources. At least one, possibly two. Horses and copper/iron? Earlier I thought moving the settler 1N would be a good idea, but I've reconsidered. There's nothing terribly exciting up there.. just settle in place and hope for some nice hidden goodies.

 

[BARBEERIAN]

I'd still move the settler to the wheat to scan the surrounding tiles quickly, and then probably settle 1N of the default position on the other plains forest. Too many resourceless forest tiles in the Fat-X to the south whose only use early will be chopping (and chopping works just as well in 3rd ring of the city so why waste Fat-X space). North seems much more 'Rivery', which I always enjoy for the bonus commerce, trading, and later game hammers.

 

[Porphyrius]

settle in place. this tile 3N1E seems to be coast. settling 1 tile off the cost is a big no-no.
and 3N might be desert..

If you mean 3N1E of the settler its pretty dark there, if you mean 3N1W then you may be right. And since we know from the scout SE cant combine furs and wheat, S to be tundra that generally leaves E and NE(or in place ofcourse).
Had the scout moved N+NE instead we would know a tid be more.



I think there no hidden resources anywhere or deers etc to the south. The map scripts value forests, rivers and flood plains too much, so they likely take wheat + 2 hills +3 fps + half a dozen river tiles and equal forests to be a decent spot.



Settling in place has mainly one avantage, a 3 tile to work immidiently(to make use of the 25% worker poduction bonus). On the other wheat+3 fps are mediocre at best, and 2 hills will cause issues with early production.

Spending a turn to move 1N or 2N+E(1N of the wheat) fixes the production issues adding at least 1 extra hill(1N of the 2*NE grass hill there's a hill). It also follows the river and likely better riverside tiles. All that while keeping all fps and possibly adding more and fresh water. Definitely preferable to in place. In fact i'd choose 2N+E over 1N as the visible land we'll be leaving to our SW is very poor.

However i'm tempted to suggest what Calder does: move settler 2*NE to the grass hill to scout further. I'm convinced that E/NE of the wheat there's a better place likely including extra resources. Failing that more FPs should be likely to the N following the river.
All things considered in place is a very mediocre land and moving likely will net something better. Even if it means adding a couple desert tiles i think the 1st city's immidiate and mid term land is much more important to what happens at sizes 15+.

 

[Sisiutil]

Had the scout moved N+NE instead we would know a tid be more.

THIS is why I allow these move-the-Settler/Scout/Warrior debates, and this is ALSO why they go on for ten pages!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Tsk, that's why I suggested move the scout once North and post a screenie afterwards We could have had 5 more pages of deciding which 2nd move was best, W, NW, N, or NE.

 

[Abegweit]

Settling in place is right - mostly because that's the location that the map generator has optimized. On top of that going north wastes a turn and going east risks settling a resource. I really don't see what there is to discuss.

A more interesting possibility would be to move further away - perhaps much further - in the hopes of finding a more central location for a faster conquest. However, that doesn't make much sense on a doughnut map.

 

[oldsaxon]

I'd settle in place. While I move more often than most, there's no particular reason to do so this time.

 

[LlamaCat]

let's get this show on the road

Spoiler :

I got my ass handed to me on a silver platter by the barbs before 100 turns were out, so I'm curious to see what happens here. I settled 1 E on the plains.