Commander in Chief - Term 1

I respectfully disagree. At this level (above monarch) I prefer to pop a hut using a founding city. No barbarians that way. I'm not sure where the hut is relation to our next city site, but I'm pretty sure we'll be over there soon.
 
To put it in context (hopefully I did this right - maybe in the future the screenshots in the SotE thread can show a little more territory and have the grid on :)?):

 
:agree:. There is a 65% chance of barbarians at this level, and if we get a barbarian to the east of the hut, and he heads toward our core, then we have a mess on our hands.

I'd say, "Go West, young Bond!"
 
I respectfully disagree. At this level (above monarch) I prefer to pop a hut using a founding city. No barbarians that way. I'm not sure where the hut is relation to our next city site, but I'm pretty sure we'll be over there soon.

I thought that didn't matter, it was only if you hadn't built any units with attack defense capability that you couldn't get a barbarian.
 
I couldn't find the on-line version, but here's a quick summary:

Maps: Always available
Nothing: Always available
Settler: Must not have a settler active or in production and must have less cities than world average (# world cities / # of players)
Mercenaries: Must be a unit available to barbarians and the player and unit must be able to be built or has already be been built by some player in the game.
Tech: Player must be in ancient times.
Barbarians: Player is not expansionist. There must not be a city within the 1 tile radius. Player must have at least 1 city. Player must have one land military unit (attack factor > 0). Unit popping the hut must not have All Terrain as Roads ability.

And at Emperor for a non-Exp tribe:
City 5%
Tech 10%
Gold 5%
Settler 5%
Map 5%
Warrior 5%
Nothing 0%
Barbarians 65%
 
Let us wait with this hut for a while, at least until we have a military force large enough that we don't have to worry about some barbs.

As far as I remember barbs have no combat penalty anymore, it is also very likely that we loose JB, which would destroy our exploring plans immediately.

Errr, what did I want to say?? Ahh yes...we should not pop the hut!
 
Chamnix says West
Classical Hero says Norht West
I think North West and then moving further north is best.
 
I also think we should go NW, we should find more land in that direction.
 
I'm just allergic to moving NW, NE, SW, or SE. N,S,E, and W generally uncover more.

However, if our goal is to uncover that area W of Baldric, then NW then N is the only thing that makes sense. I was thinking we might just want that warrior to leave the Baldric area entirely to see who else is out there.

Dutchfire is the boss :salute:.
 
Unless he posts again before you play, I would say you go with what dutchfire said last:

dutchfire said:
I think North West and then moving further north is best.
 
Orders posted, warrior NW. I'd prefer keeping this warrior close too home until we've uncovered more land. For all we know, another team could be like 15 tiles away from Baldric.
 
When I see the mountain in the west I am eager to climb it...just to have a better idea of the closer surroundings of Baldric. Maybe we are missing a nice spot for one of our next cities...
 
Bond needs to continue to travel abroad to see the world. We need to find another team quickly so we can begin trade negotiations. We should send Bond NW.

We will have a second warrior out of Scymtar soon that can explore our surroundings in more detail.
 
Back
Top Bottom