City Placement

[peter grimes]

Re: New Dot Map

I think we need to consider adding about 9 town locations to that map, so that we can specialist farm. The placement is very spread out, and at those levels of corruption the towns won't be good for much else. I think that the next wave of towns should be settled at CxC placement, rather than CxxC.

Unless I'm completely wrong, of course

 

[Paul#42]

Good map.

I had ICS in mind, too, but I think that should wait till FP is build and all planned sites are settled so we can judge the corruption.
If our distant towns are too corrupt (even with courts) we should insert some more towns in the gaps, that's why I like the dot map with its spread out placement. I'd like to optimize some sites (black, pink) for this purpose though.

 

[tomasjj]

Once again I reveal that I am not playing Civ anymore, just watching this game. Ring placement...oh my.

I have to get back into the saddle, and will fire up a game this weekend...wish me luck

For the blue dot, as Aigburth says, one SW towards the lake seems like a good option if we are going to do the plains cape town.

 

[peter grimes]

I had ICS in mind, too, but I think that should wait till FP is build and all planned sites are settled so we can judge the corruption.

That makes sense to me.

 

[General_W]

I have some good news!
CAII let's you look at potential new city sites to gage their corruption. I was pretty happy with what I found!
Here's the results:

• Red = 41%
• Purple = 53%
• Dark Blue = 57%
• White = 65%
• Orange = 65%
• Light Blue = 65%
• Light Green = 65%
• Black = 65%
• Yellow = 75%
• Green = 75%
• Green Square Island = 75%
• Pink = 81%
• Brown = 83%
• Yellow Square Big Island = 83%
• Red Square Island = 90%
• Blue Square Big Island = 90%

With courthouses, a FP, and a switch to Republic - this is totally manageable. ICS may not even be needed?

Spoiler :

Just throwing it out there to help the planning!


EDIT: those numbers in the middle look a little fishy... I think CAII was updated to use the new corruption model, not RCP... or am I wrong?

 

[zyxy]

Another town on the plains N-NW of Blue Dot could be useful - at least it grabs a few extra coastal tiles and a whale. Of course it could increase corruption in other towns.

If we move Blue Dot 1 SW then we lose the hill and some coast. OTOH, we would no longer need an aqueduct, so I am not so sure what's best.

General_W, I think that CA2 computes the corruption level of each planned town purely based on the other towns that currently exist. So it does not take into account the extra rank corruption due to other planned towns. Still, I think that we can largely go without ICS on our main island.

 

[Aigburth]

General_W, I think that CA2 computes the corruption level of each planned town purely based on the other towns that currently exist. So it does not take into account the extra rank corruption due to other planned towns. Still, I think that we can largely go without ICS on our main island.

Yes I have definately observed this when planning towns in CA2, also don't forget we still have the FP to complete which will reduce corruption.

 

[tomasjj]

Still, I think that we can largely go without ICS on our main island.

I like the ambitious spin on this....
Then I have had a few glasses of red.

 

[General_W]

I had an idea to maybe give us an even better estimate.
I loaded an old file from MIA in the first MTDG, and looked at our top 25 cities.

I think this is a pretty direct comparison, because MIA's Capital (Athens) was up against the Southern Coast, just like we are, with all the cities spread out in a Northern semi-circle.

This shows those top 25 towns in a Republic Government, with a Forbidden Palace in Virtuoso (purple circle) and courthouses in many cities (red squares).

If our plan (that currently calls for 25 towns, including islands) ends up looking like this… then we're in GREAT shape!

P.S. yeah... we'll ICS the other Islands when we capture them!

 

[zyxy]

Updated dotmap:

I moved Blue Dot to its new location, and added Purple Square and Cyan Square. I am not sure we should settle the latter two, because they will increase corruption in a lot of better placed towns.

I would go for Cyan Dot next, followed by Orange Dot and Green Dot (as a bonus this will disperse the camp, hopefully in time).

Note that these three are at the same distance (12) from The Chamber, so the settling order determines the rank and hence the corruption. I would expect Cyan Dot to become very powerful later on (close to FP; deer, dyes, bg's for food, commerce and shields; forests to speed up initial production). The other two less so, hence the order.

 

[tomasjj]

I like your order of settlement, zyxy.

 

[General_W]

Looking very nice. Very good analysis on doing Cyan Dot first.

 

[zyxy]

Next turn (turn 93) we'll settle Lightgreen Dot and Red Dot. After that, we have two settlers before the anarchy: a new one from TC, and the one on board Chamsuri up north. Where do we settle? We cannot build settlers during anarchy (except by chopping, but that's going to be tricky)...

We could switch The Institute to settler, but it will take some time to regrow without a granary.

- I think we need to settle at least two more spots on the homeland to seal it to intruders (more or less, it will still be possible to settle, but not without border tension) and barb camps: Dark Green Dot and Brown Dot (or thereabouts)
- We can claim the northern island.
- The two 1 tile islands can easily be blocked with warriors (we should do that soon).

Two settlers, three spots. What does The Council prefer?

 

[Paul#42]

Two settlers, three spots. What does The Council prefer?

The island spot for sure and the spot that our remaining settler will reach faster.

 

[donsig]

I'd settle the green dot city on the NW coast with Chamsuri's settler. The island will still be there and we really only have to worry about BABE settling it. For the second city I'd settle the dark orange dot on the west coast by the gems.

 

[Paul#42]

I'd really like to safely pop the hut while monarchy is around.
And see the hidden lux of course although we can't hook it up before Magnetism...

Yet I agree the island might be a distraction of our force and interest...

 

[donsig]

I thought we couldn't get techs from huts once we are in the middle ages. Maybe we can't get middle age techs but could still pop AA techs?

I think settling the island right now makes it a sitting duck for BABE. i'd rather we cover our main land mass first. If BABE doesn't attack us the we have time to settle the island. If they do attack us we couldn't keep it anyway. We've already put alot of effort into Sistine's so we could live without luxes.

 

[General_W]

While I agree we should settle the main landmass first - those 1 tile Islands can't be attacked if we put a city there... at least not till marines.

We should at least put a warrior scout on those 1 tile islands to prevent BABE from getting an impervious city right off our coast.

 

[sirdanilot]

I think we should settle the one tile island. It'll be like a fortress. Even if babe conquers all our other cities, it will still be there

 

[Paul#42]

I think we should settle the one tile island. It'll be like a fortress. Even if babe conquers all our other cities, it will still be there

Will you still be there to play this when we are playing OCC on a one-tile-island?
I certainly not...

Although it would be quite an experience for some time. They would let us live to get our bonus tech on the era change - just like we love to do with SCI civs in our solo games...

edit:
I strongly oppose to settling a one-tile-island now. Just send reg warriors there.
I'd send the settler to either the northern island.
I think to claim that resource chest is worth the one settler. If we lose it it's sad but if we can keep it it will be some gain for the future - and if it's just to find out who's our friend and who's not. Certainly not the one that lands his units next to our undefended towns.
Call it a satellite attitude indicator...