Buce03 - Throwing Away the Crutches

[Phaedo]

I don't like the idea of abandoning a city this early on. If it was just a temporary strategic location it would be fine, but we want serious value from our next number of cities.

Red and blue seem fine; beyond that, I'd like to see more before I commit. I'm not averse to moving red a bit further away, but without seeing what is there, it's hard to tell. It needs to be another pump (worker/settler), so if we were to move it, I would vote for SW. SE could be great (nabbing the incense eventually), but could also suck if the coast doesn't break our way. From what we see, I would say that TT's red location will work fine for our next city.

We need to get some workers out, but I really think that we need a full time scout as well. We are really limited in our planning because we just don't know enough. The upside is that we have the engine to build a quick empire.

I haven't looked at how it will affect the pump, but I think we should build a warrior after the settler in Paris and then a worker. By that time, Orleans should be close to getting the gran and we will be in position to average a settler every two turns if we want. I would like to see what is around so we can send them to a planned location rather than using settlers as scouts.

At this point, everything other than red, blue and orange are just possibilities before we know more.

Blue has great cash possibilities. I personally like port cities, but I don't see the benefit in spending resources on one until we have exploited the rivers.

Edit: all references are to TT's map. It was just closer when i was writing

 

[Phaedo]

One more thought. Although mountains can be a big shield resource eventually, they will take 12 worker turns for 3 or 4 shields (I forget which). If you compare that to 3 mined grass or plains, it's not a very effective use of worker turns. Better not to cont on them until workers don't have anything better to do.

 

[Elephantium]

I don't like the idea of abandoning a city this early on. If it was just a temporary strategic location it would be fine, but we want serious value from our next number of cities.

When I say "abandon Orleans", I mean "abandon Orleans in ~500AD"

Red and blue seem fine; beyond that, I'd like to see more before I commit. I'm not averse to moving red a bit further away, but without seeing what is there, it's hard to tell. It needs to be another pump (worker/settler), so if we were to move it, I would vote for SW. SE could be great (nabbing the incense eventually), but could also suck if the coast doesn't break our way. From what we see, I would say that TT's red location will work fine for our next city.

We need to get some workers out, but I really think that we need a full time scout as well. We are really limited in our planning because we just don't know enough. The upside is that we have the engine to build a quick empire.

We'll have scouts at the end of the next turnset, I think. Right now we have 3 warriors; Paris can make a 4th after the current Settler build finishes, and I expect City #3 to make four 5-turn Warriors in the next two turnsets. The first can scout, #2 will be MP in City #3, the third will scout, and the last will be another MP in City #3.

I haven't looked at how it will affect the pump, but I think we should build a warrior after the settler in Paris and then a worker. By that time, Orleans should be close to getting the gran and we will be in position to average a settler every two turns if we want. I would like to see what is around so we can send them to a planned location rather than using settlers as scouts.

I disagree about building the worker; we'll get more from Orleans soon enough.

At this point, everything other than red, blue and orange are just possibilities before we know more.

Blue has great cash possibilities. I personally like port cities, but I don't see the benefit in spending resources on one until we have exploited the rivers.

Edit: all references are to TT's map. It was just closer when i was writing

Where do you think we should put City #3? I've been thinking red, with City #4 going for orange, but we might be better off settling blue first.

One more thought. Although mountains can be a big shield resource eventually, they will take 12 worker turns for 3 or 4 shields (I forget which). If you compare that to 3 mined grass or plains, it's not a very effective use of worker turns. Better not to cont on them until workers don't have anything better to do.

Agreed - mountains are the last tiles to improve, and we should wait to water the core (to enable mountain-working) until after the empire is railed.

Oh, and mined mountains give 3 shields, 4 if railed (hills also give 4 shields when mined and railed -- a much better deal).

 

[Bucephalus]

Right, I've finally got some time tonight, so what I thought I might do is to try and provide a DM showing everybody's suggestions superimposed on it.

 

[Elephantium]

It just occurred to me that we only need to figure out the next two city positions. The next turnset will go like

Turn 1 IBT: Paris settler->settler (settle at site #1)
Turn 5 IBT: Paris settler->settler (settle at site #2)
Turn 9 IBT: Paris settler->settler (discuss where to settle; settler gets moved by next turn player after handoff).

or

Turn 1 IBT: Paris settler->warrior (settle at site #1)
Turn 3 IBT: Paris warrior->settler
Turn 7 IBT: Paris settler->settler (settle at site #2)

Either way, we'll have better intelligence in 10 turns. For now, I favor blue (riverside, instant access to 3 BGs) and green (instant access to 2 BGs and a deer forest).

Before, I had been thinking red (by default), but since it can't use the cow tile until Republic, it's not as valuable a site as blue or green.

 

[DWetzel]

lurker's comment: Hope you don't mind me commenting on this - but if you're considering abandoning a city down the line, Paris would seem to be a better choice! With other cities closely packed to Paris, it seems like you would be able to have a number of cities working both food bonus tiles and hill/mountain tiles for a number of really productive cities. Where Paris is, it gets a ton of food and not a lot of shields -- and if you take away the food bonii and give those to other cities, and also give those cities the rest of the tiles that Paris could work, I think you'd come out ahead compared to abandoning Orleans -- at least from a shields perspective.)

 

[Bucephalus]

lurker's comment: Hope you don't mind me commenting on this

Not at all - lurker comment is always most welcome.

but if you're considering abandoning a city down the line, Paris would seem to be a better choice!

Possibly, though the effect on the economy caused by a palace jump would have to be taken into consideration. Personally, as mentioned before, I don't ever envisage a time where we couldn't continue to use workers, whether it be for adding into cities/metros or just for working.

 

[Elephantium]

Not at all - lurker comment is always most welcome.



Possibly, though the effect on the economy caused by a palace jump would have to be taken into consideration. Personally, as mentioned before, I don't ever envisage a time where we couldn't continue to use workers, whether it be for adding into cities/metros or just for working.

Au contraire! If we don't run out of workers tasks at least 20 turns before we get Steam Power, we haven't been building enough workers!

...'course, the figures change when you start adding 4-6 workers to each city, but that's why we need at least two Worker pumps!

 

[Bucephalus]

OK, I've abandoned my idea of trying to superimpose dotmaps - it simply adds to the confusion, unfortunately. I think that I agree with Phaedo's point regarding lack of intelligence (I assume he was refering to the map, and not our collective IQ). I feel that it would be the best idea to use a warrior from Paris and the one from Orleans, to go to the two tiles marked in red on my map. It would require raising the slider for a few turns, but I think the advantages outweigh the loss of revenue. Although I agree that the dot south of the non-irrigated cow looks like a prime site, I'd dearly love to know what is beyond those mountains before committing to it; and as someone (Tusker?) pointed out, it won't have the use of the cows until Republic, so there's little point in settling it atm.

The one concrete suggestion I would make is the spot indicated by the blue dot on my map; neither Tusker's or TT's map allow for the use of the tiles E and SE of Paris, which are prime river tiles. It is potentially a powerful site, coastal - so allowing us to put out a couple of boats for contacts - but having minimal number of coastal tiles, so plenty of shields and river tiles available to it. Of course, that would be conditional on Paris remaining a pump, something I'm strongly in favour of, as you know.

So, what I'm proposing is that I play 1 turn into my set to give us a better view.

Obviously, I won't do that without consensus, so I'll leave it overnight for you to comment.

 

[Phaedo]

I think that I agree with Phaedo's point regarding lack of intelligence (I assume he was referring to the map, and not our collective IQ).

I think I said info rather than intelligence, but now that you mention it...

I feel that it would be the best idea to use a warrior from Paris and the one from Orleans, to go to the two tiles marked in red on my map. It would require raising the slider for a few turns, but I think the advantages outweigh the loss of revenue.

I'd also like to get a view from that western mountain next to the game. There are lots of river tiles over there. I agree that your two red dots are the priorities though. A warrior shuffle could get us the northern one on your turn 0. Won't the southern dot take three turns to reach?

The one concrete suggestion I would make is the spot indicated by the blue dot on my map; neither Tusker's or TT's map allow for the use of the tiles E and SE of Paris, which are prime river tiles. It is potentially a powerful site, coastal - so allowing us to put out a couple of boats for contacts - but having minimal number of coastal tiles, so plenty of shields and river tiles available to it.

The more I look at your blue dot Buce, the more I like it.

So, what I'm proposing is that I play 1 turn into my set to give us a better view.

Obviously, I won't do that without consensus, so I'll leave it overnight for you to comment.

Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Phaedo]

Where do you think we should put City #3? I've been thinking red, with City #4 going for orange, but we might be better off settling blue first.

I was thinking red, but I like Buce's blue more. City 4 is still a bit of an open question for me. I'd like to see more.

...'course, the figures change when you start adding 4-6 workers to each city, but that's why we need at least two Worker pumps!

So, you are suggesting keeping Orleans and Paris as settler pumps, founding two more worker pumps and then abandoning one of the pumps? Couldn't Paris or Orleans be effective worker pumps? If so, wouldn't a 4th city that was to grow normally and develop as a science/cash city get us where we are going quicker? We would be postponing that for a 4th worker pump so that we could abandon it or another city half-way through the game.

I would rather plan for every city counting rather than planning for an abandonment. It might make sense to abandon a city later on, but I can't see that far ahead yet.

I think the better play is to make the most of what we have now. I think Buce is right to plan for Paris and Orleans to be pumps late into the game. I have a feeling we won't need them quite as long as he predicted, but I may just be being overly optimistic. Planing to keep them as pumps, focuses us on getting our other cities tailored to our needs. If we come to a point where we don't need the pumps, we can then make a decision if it is better to abandon one or just grow them as much as we can.

 

[Elephantium]

Buce's blue dot looks good to me.

I'd prefer to keep the sliders where they are and scout with the first warrior from City #3, but if we need more scouting in order to pick a site for City #4, so be it.

So, you are suggesting keeping Orleans and Paris as settler pumps, founding two more worker pumps and then abandoning one of the pumps?

No, that's not what I meant at all. I was thinking that we could abandon Orleans once we didn't need any more Workers, and that would coincide with the purple dot needing the last couple of tiles from Orleans.

I've since abandoned that notion.

 

[Bucephalus]

I'd prefer to keep the sliders where they are and scout with the first warrior from City #3, but if we need more scouting in order to pick a site for City #4, so be it.

It would only be for two turns until the pop drops with the settler completion.

Won't the southern dot take three turns to reach?

No. I can make one move before pressing 'enter', which takes it across the river, then the road allows it to reach its spot in two more turns. I realize as I write this that I miscounted originally when I said one turn, but it will still be there the same turn as the settler is produced.

 

[Bucephalus]

I've played two turns, as agreed, and I think it's fair to say we made a good decision to explore further. The land to the west of Paris is simply magnificent, and warrants further investigation. I would suggest that we use the newly spawned settler to settle my proposed site (blue dot on my previous DM) where it can quickly replace the MP in Paris, and allow the warrior to continue exploring. I have set Paris to provisionally build a worker, since I am in agreement with Phaedo in that we need one more urgently than another settler (though it is not a fait accompli), but also will give more time to open up the land. I'm also inclined to suggest that the warrior from Orleans continues to the area NW from Paris, which also looks tantalizingly magnificent. I don't think I've ever rolled a start with so much commercial potential.

 

[Elephantium]

If we need a second worker that desperately, go for it. Keep in mind, though, that the Granary in Orleans is due at the beginning of the next turnset, and the first Worker from there should pop on Turn 3 of the next turnset. Personally, I think we can wait the extra 8 turns for the second worker since it means getting our next city built two turns earlier (building settler next instead of worker next).

The main benefit to a second worker right now seems to be getting Paris set up as a combo factory earlier than if we build settlers.

 

[Bucephalus]

If we need a second worker that desperately, go for it.

We have one worker for three towns; even with Industrious workers that is far too few.

The main benefit to a second worker right now seems to be getting Paris set up as a combo factory earlier than if we build settlers.

Actually, Paris will already function as a 4 turner. It makes 6 shields at size 4, 7 at size 5 (6,6,2,7,7,2=30). My biggest concern is that Orleans is working unimproved tiles, as will the next town.

I understand your desire to REX, and if I thought we'd be competing for land this early, I'd agree. However, with these map parameters, I don't think it's such an issue. Phaedo is absolutely right that we shouldn't be using settlers to bust fog, and I think we've already reaped the benefit of exposing the new territory with the warriors. Not only can we have a definitive idea of where to place the new towns for maximum returns (and given our 'no farms' rule I think that is essential), but our settlers can go straight there, so we probably don't lose any turns anyway.
Besides, three towns and a fully functioning SF is not at all bad for 33 turns in.

Before I place the next settler, which will be produced on turn 8 of my set, I will pause for consultation as to its best placement. I am assuming there are no objections to the current settler going to the blue dot?

 

[Elephantium]

We have one worker for three towns; even with Industrious workers that is far too few.

For now...in less than 10 turns, we'll start producing a new worker every other turn. That'll catch up fairly quickly.

Actually, Paris will already function as a 4 turner. It makes 6 shields at size 4, 7 at size 5 (6,6,2,7,7,2=30). My biggest concern is that Orleans is working unimproved tiles, as will the next town.

Err, I said combo factory -- i.e. making a Warrior on Turn 1 and a Settler on Turns 2-4 of the factory's operation. I'm well aware that it already functions as a vanilla 4-turn factory; I said as such earlier in this thread.

Sorry if it seems like I'm blowing up at you, but several people have been misquoting me in this thread lately, and it's getting really frustrating.

I understand your desire to REX, and if I thought we'd be competing for land this early, I'd agree. However, with these map parameters, I don't think it's such an issue. Phaedo is absolutely right that we shouldn't be using settlers to bust fog, and I think we've already reaped the benefit of exposing the new territory with the warriors. Not only can we have a definitive idea of where to place the new towns for maximum returns (and given our 'no farms' rule I think that is essential), but our settlers can go straight there, so we probably don't lose any turns anyway.
Besides, three towns and a fully functioning SF is not at all bad for 33 turns in.

Before I place the next settler, which will be produced on turn 8 of my set, I will pause for consultation as to its best placement. I am assuming there are no objections to the current settler going to the blue dot?

Blue dot is fine.

 

[Bucephalus]

Am I not typing in English? It seems like every couple of posts I have to correct someone putting words in my mouth. I said combo factory -- i.e. making a Warrior on Turn 1 and a Settler on Turns 2-4 of the factory's operation. I'm well aware that it already functions as a vanilla 4-turn factory; I said as such about three pages ago in this thread.

Sorry if it seems like I'm blowing up at you, but several people have been misquoting me in this thread lately, and it's getting really frustrating.

I think you might want to re-read this and ask yourself if it's a reasonable way to speak to someone who has merely made a mistake. I have a RL, which sometimes means that I post in haste.

 

[Phaedo]

In an attempt to avoid further misunderstanding, I thought I'd posts my understanding of where we are at the moment. Please correct anything that I have missed or misunderstood.

We have two cities. Paris is a working settler pump. Orleans is working on a granary and then will able to be another settler pump. Both could produce workers or other units if we want, but their main purpose is producing settlers at the moment.

We need another city that will act as a worker pump.

Other cities need to emphasize commerce to aid our research.

We will need to settle two cities in Buce's set. One location has been decided, the other one is still up for discussion.

Does that pretty much sum it up? I think any other decisions are still open for discussion.

 

[Elephantium]

I think you might want to re-read this and ask yourself if it's a reasonable way to speak to someone who has merely made a mistake. I have a RL, which sometimes means that I post in haste.

My apologies. I did kind of jump on you over that. These misunderstandings are rather frustrating.