City planning and dotmapping

I think that the GH gives you a random one with the cheapest being the highest percentage
 
The first thing that is taken into consideration is the difficulty level. Usually anything Emperor or above won't give you a tech. Deity or above won't give anything but yokels. I think Rik et al. have set the difficulty level low. I propose going for all those goody huts as soon as possible.
 
Difficulty is Emperor.

If the city is planted 1 tile from it then it won't spawn barbs. We got WC from the one by Dunderhead.
 
Wow! I didn't know you could get techs at Emperor level. Could they have messed around with the editor?
 
No that's normal... I think that Diety and I know Sid don't give techs. If a city isn't founded within 1 tile radius of the GH there is a 65% chance on Emp. that barbs will spew.
 
Should we go for the Ivory?

First, I think we need to start the 'Clown Rivierra' with Jesterton, but maybe we should send the next settler down and grab the ivory.

I know its something of a gamble, but MIA seems pretty unwieldy at this point. They are slow to trade, they are worried about warriors in neutral territory. I think long-term relations with them could be problomatic.

With that in mind having a domestic source for as many lux as possible allows us to work from a postion of strength.

I know its a ways away. I know that eventually it would require respectable military forces to defend. But it is also a lux close to their territory - it might be an inviting military target that could distract them from a flanking attack at another point.

I just throw it out for discussion.

I will repeat, I think once the rax is up we need to send spearmen down to these southern posts.

But a southern port of call for the navy may be a real, long-term asset.
 
booti said:
But a southern port of call for the navy may be a real, long-term asset.
I haven't thought of that. That's a great idea. Rush a harbor in the south and forego the road back to civilization for now.

Although the road to the south might be beneficial to get our troops down there quicker since it looks like we might need it.
 
IMO it's impossible to defend. Our workers have to develop our core and roads to the south, through jungles, will take considerable effort. My guess is there is some ivory (or another lux) nearby our western or eastern edge that will be more easily defended. This map is balanced.
 
Whomp said:
IMO it's impossible to defend.

I don't disagree, but go with me on this for a minute.

Based on their generally unimpressive preformance, their nervesnouss about Peapants in neautral territory :rolleyes: , their desire for AA detente, I think that a city near the ivory will drive them CRAZY!!!

They won't do anything about it during AA (it's outside the river after all), but it may be a very inviting military target in the MA. If we can make the sourthern ivory port a red flag to their bull, we could bleed them by defending it well.

IF, that happened it would be a tie-down for their military that would, perchance, allow us to strike elsewhere while their main force is focused on the ivory.

OR, if they ignore it, make it strong enough to be a raiding center.

I'm just playing devil's advocate for now.

This ISN'T worth it if it is going to slow down core development at an unacceptable rate. And aside from a portthe road would be necessary; that would be a long-term commitment.

But MIA seems unwilling to trade and slow to hesitant to expand. It would be POOR MANAGEMENT of our continent to let them have more than necessary.

Just trying to find ways to be a good steward of our recources (including ivory).
 
New proposed western empire
 
I think we may want to adjust our dye city to one of the northern dyes. With a temple we can get ALL of the dyes AND the banannas.

We could always put a fortified unit on the mountain and later a fortification. It would be a great place for artilery in the future.
 
Here's something for future city placement discussion:
 

Attachments

  • 35_thegap2.JPG
    35_thegap2.JPG
    40.5 KB · Views: 95
I think we should adjust the city que as indicated on the last city placement graphic.

We should keep city one as is. I think that 'city 3' should be moved to city 2. I think that would put the iron in our borders and we could start producing GS.

Assuming that placement, I wish I could see the looks on their faces when the stats reveal three cities in the next sixteen truns :eek:

SETTLER PUMP!! :woohoo:
 
With the save going on again, I think it's time for a renewed dotmap with all known land into it. I'll try to post something that way today.
 
So here's a blank dotmap for you to toy with.
And an attempt at mapping the situation from my part:

KissDot1.gif


Dots that are white-centered are built, yellow-centered are recollected from this thread and blue-centered are new additions by yours truly. Of course this is an attempt, and I put the link to a blank one so that we might have another brave soul try his own.

If we are going to jump the palace, it would probably be best to do so at the Blue(Yellow) spot, and rebuild 2 towns to replace our old capital: 1 W-SW, 1 NE from its original spot.
 
[Edit] Sorry double post
 
Btw, I see no reason why not to make our 3rd city into a 4-turner as well: we've got land to settle. Once we have enough tiles and approach dom limit, we can build a few workers ;)

On a serious not though, I'd really make it a settler factory. It's just got so much pootential, why make it pump workers? other cities can do that, and if we really need workers, we can swap it back for a few rounds of 2T workers.

Or, for that matter, make our 1st and 2nd city a 4-turners with the wheat FPs and our 3rd city a worker pump working 2 FP and 3 BG. That would be almost gross, and with the crazy amount of other cities we'll have we probably will be able to sustain a large enough number of warriors to hold it, militarily.
 
One thing Beorn.... The dye city needs to be ON one of the dyes in order to claim them all. MIA is very serious about tit for tat. If we have all four dyes, it will give us more 'tits' to trade for 'tats'.

The preceding statement has no sexual conotation whatsoever and any seen has been purely placed there by the reader.
 
Back
Top Bottom