Building More Cities?

Stuck_as_a_Mac

Aptenodytes forsteri
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Messages
3,936
Location
NYC
Just dashing this one off before I leave for a family celebration.

With all the talk about culture and wars and wonders and whatnot, we've seem to have forgotten about cities.

So...

We building any more anytime soon? None of the cities have settlers enqueued. So whats the plan in regards to this?

SaaM

who reminds people that domestic has enqueued one city for spot four and that we still have that IronWheat spot.
 
No, There are at least 3 important sites. Coastal to the North East, North of Donsignia and one on the tobacco between The HAgue and Gronningen. The later will cause a war of course, but it's as good a way as any of doing it.
 
See the "Culture Consul Last Strategy Discussion" - Provo pointed out plenty of very good city spots that we can almost certainly get if we get moving on settlers sooner rather than later. We can effectively box in two dutch cities and possibly(in the long run) flip them. It also moves us in the direction of a monopoly on wines, which has been discussed. There's no need to plant a city and start a war; anyway, if we're going to do that, might as well do it on a hill to act as a fort.
 
Ginger_Ale said:
There is a settler en queue after the Barracks in Camelot, before we build units.

If we're not going to build a unit after the barracks, why don't we build the settler first?
 
Interesting question. We need vigorous growth if we are to achieve a cultural victory. I agree we need to produce another settler soon.

We’ve had some good discussions about how to develop our cities to help achieve our goals, but I wonder if new information might suggest we revisit our strategic and tactical plans. For instance, in a thread about a week ago we discussed the desirability of having Camelot produce a barracks, which it currently is doing. However, at that time we also assumed that our new settler factory, Provolutia, would be settled sooner than it was. For good reasons we decided to establish other cities first; but by doing so, we’ve put ourselves behind in producing settlers.

I would change production queues at the beginning of the next playturn. Specifically, I would change Camelot’s barracks to a settler (and fire the scientist and put a citizen to work). After that I would produce a worker; then another settler; then dedicate it as our permanent worker factory (assuming Provolutia is producing settlers). We’ll need lots of workers and squeezing them out of Donsignia and Roosting Tree between producing vet warriors and chariots isn’t a good plan IMO (unless we need to reduce their size for happiness reasons).

Provolutia should switch production to a granary so we can establish the settler pump ASAP.

Donsignia should continue producing its barracks, and then produce nothing but vet warriors and chariots. Roosting Tree is currently building a worker and then will presumably build a barracks. We need another worker to help develop Donsignia and Roosting Tree but we’ll also want a barracks from there soon. I’d continue with the worker, then produce a barracks, though switching to a barracks in Roosting Tree has its attractions.

Bentley is currently producing a warrior. Although I’m not a fan of spears, I’d make an exception in this case and switch Bentley’s production to a spear. Why? Two reasons: first, by poaching India’s iron we’ve made an enemy that is likely to attack us soon. Bentley is the logical focus of their attack so we need an improved defense. This alone wouldn’t be a good enough reason to produce a spear rather than a couple of warriors, but a spear would also fit well into a combined forces stack that could be used when we declare war on India (one spear anchoring a stack of swords). However, I wouldn’t complain at all if we dismiss the idea of the spear.

I got too chatty here and my post has expanded the discussion way beyond SaaM's original point. :blush: Anyway, we do need to keep our settler production ramped up.
 
LeeT911 said:
If we're not going to build a unit after the barracks, why don't we build the settler first?

Good point. I'm not sure myself, actually...
 
I think the intention for Camelot is rax, vet warrior, settler, warrior, settler etc. It could be switched to a settler only pump with a lower pop, which would allow lower lux sliders and a better shot a philo. If we short-shift it to workers once the 4 turn SF is up then is means we don't waste shields and turns on a rax. All in all a decent plan which I support.
Bentley needs two forest chops to speed roads and hurry the rax it must get next. We need to get maybe 6 vet warriors out of somewhere in the next dozen or so turns. Therein lies the rub. Tempus fugit and all that. :)
 
Good idea. This is C3C so chops only take 4 turns. Is whoever's in charge of worker actions thinking about chops?
 
LeeT911 said:
Good idea. This is C3C so chops only take 4 turns. Is whoever's in charge of worker actions thinking about chops?

That would be the Director of Infrastructure, currently Chieftess and looking like she'll still have that position next term.
 
LeeT911 said:
If we're not going to build a unit after the barracks, why don't we build the settler first?

We already built 2 settlers before the barracks.

With max food we will be at size 5 making 7 and then 9 shields which will be a 16 shield warrior. We will also be at Size 6 with a full food box before a settler would come out thus wasting one turn of food.

So, the most efficient build queue is:
Barracks - Settler - Warrior - Settler - Warrior - etc.

Let's get Saam's Oxford built. Lets give him the Tundra Fishing Village. :joke:
 
No, we're pinned in. We need to start building swords now.
 
Back
Top Bottom