Casual 1 - Player Vote

Nice turns b_d; Looking good.

I think, we should sent a unit to Theveste: undefended cities are a temptation for the AI. Also, the other city (with the iron, very hard name!) should work the iron hill: the archer will be produced in 4 turns instead of 7, and there is no change on growth.

Theveste will be our settler factory, when improved. Better let the other cities to keep producing archers and swords(when the iron is connected). I have bad intentions for the other civs(who knows, maybe they'll never get to do anything...)
 
Just my opinion here, but you seem to have a pretty liberal spread there on those city suggestions mistfit. Maybe we can try and work on a little bit tighter city placement. I'll open it up and plot some suggestions for your review in a bit.

Unless I am just being airy, and your suggestions are initial sets.
 
Just suggestions. Feel free to shoot holes in it. I placed no order of importance on it because I thought we could have some feed back first.

Casual.JPG
 
I guess Mauer and I just have different styles. Your city placement looked pretty good to me, though moving #1 one NW wouldn't get a hill unless I am seeing it wrong. As I sort of explained before, I generally don't crowd cities too much except when the terrain is really nice or there is a river. When it is plains and desert, no real reason in my opinion to crowd until we run out of room elsewhere and/or have the ability to railroad for extra food. Later on, we can plop an extra city down on the coast between 1 and 5, and on the hill between 2, 6, and 7, but for now, we probably don't need any tighter placement. Then again, I never score all that well even if I do manage to win on Monarch, so perhaps I have been doing it wrong.
 
Mistfit said:
Ok first I get chastised for suggesting cities that are to close now to widely spread. Hmm..
Click to expand...
You have a point, maybe I should think more clearly before I comment :crazyeye: . Remember, you didn't get chastised earlier, I just made a blunder :spank: .
Mistfits reasoning for the closer cities (I think) was for A)easier to deploy and defend, B)not as many citizens in the early game, so plenty of tiles free. (About the time we are building up our army).

PS- I didn't say it looked bad, just bringing up some discussion. Tell me I'm stupid if you think so. Well, don't tell me, cause I'm sure you think so. :lol:
 
No those are good dots to discuss. We have been given a repreive from the early settler problem We have gained "free" cities from the early war. IMO we can be a bit more liberal at this point taking up city spots. If you look at your map look at Lepsis Magna. If we were to put all of those cities around it it could theoretically have 0 tiles to work.

I think we could look at the next 3 or 4 spots to settle to cover us for the next turn set by Sir Schwick I believe.

I like the two towns that you have proposed in the SE one in the 10 ring and one in the 12. These may not be immediately productive towns but it would help wall off the other civs and set-up a line of defense. I also think that we should plop a city down directly to the north of our capitol pretty soon. The AI puts huge priorty on settling towns on resourses and luxes. we could have one town with a temple that covered both. other than that any city on a river that has good growth potential is a good choice at this point.
 
Mistfit said:
If you look at your map look at Lepsis Magna. If we were to put all of those cities around it it could theoretically have 0 tiles to work.
Click to expand...
Hmm, your right. The 7 and 10 to the SW could be deleted. The spot East of Lepsis Magna on the 7 could be moved 1 tile SE. That would probably be better. And the 9 to the S could just be moved 1 tile W. And the silks to the north, how about on the tundra 3?

EDIT: I just read this post, and it is pretty confusing :confused: . Sorry, did you understand?
 
In this game, we can go for a more liberal placement: Having 3 tiles distance between cities, like city-3tiles-city, is better.
It all really depends on the game, but, in this game we haven't made a settler factory yet. If we go for a tighter city placement, the AI will grab much more land than us, IMHO. Anyway, I haven't a problem to adjust in styles. The AI will be crushed no matter what.
 
I have to say, I am a little baffled right now as far as where to plop the next settler. We really need to get a settler factory, or as close as possible. I really don't see a good spot though, that will not be too corrupted. The only half way decent spot is the southern marked tile 12. I honestly don't know :confused: . So we need somebody to take charge and pick a spot. Schwick?
 
Actually, I was looking at the mini-map, and I was going to make a suggestion of a whole different type as far as where to go. I'd like to get horses relatively soon, even if the terrain isn't ideal. Unless I missed a herd, our nearest and most accessible source is just to the north in the useless tundra.
 
Ok then, this is my "got it", but I have time to play(casual play)!.

EDIT: I'll play at the weekend. Don't worry; I haven't forgot that I'm playing in this game!
 
Sorry for the long delay, team-mates. This week is going to be busy, so Mauer can take it.
 
I think it would be safe to say, that this game has pretty much died. Even if it hadn't died, I would play it but.... I have recently had to drop out of all of my games, due to the fact that I don't have Civ 3 anymore. Circumstances, and unmentionables are the cause of it. I do apologize and wish you all good luck should you decide to continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Civ 7 is a step away from the casual fanbase
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
vorlon_mi
vorlon_mi
MarleysGh0st
Vote for BOTM 289 - Players Choice!
Replies
13
Views
679
LowtherCastle
L
Z
Cloud Game - Live Tuner - Re-assigning player
Replies
1
Views
697
Zephn
Z
haluu
Tides of Crimson mod - Game 1
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
7K
tjs282
tjs282
Mr_Fishy
Max number of players ?
Replies
3
Views
923
Scapeh
Scapeh
Back
Top Bottom