Comnenus
AKA Kenshin
blackheart said:
I just used Provo's hypothetical city name from one of the posts above.
Domestic discussion: City placement
- Thread starter Noldodan
- Start date
I just used Provo's hypothetical city name from one of the posts above.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
DaveShack said:I think we should decide on an inner and outer set of city locations, and then build the outer ones first and fill in the inner ones later. This way we'll be certain to get the land we want, instead of building the inner one and then watching an opponent build on the outer location before our next settler reaches it.
Translation: go for the gems, try to get all of them.
I again must disagree. I still believe we should send our Settler 3 tiles to the South and plant him on that hill. Build a Warrior there follwed by a Temple and you not only expand borders to include the Diamond, but you establish early Culture. With the surrounding tiles, Settler production is very possible. One thing that is also important is that is will not interfere with Fanatikku's growth/production for a long time (if at all), plus there will be no shield loss as the city will be so close to the Capital (at least until much later in the game). It establishes early growth, early culture, secures a diamond, will have unbeatable production (except fot the capital), will take advantage of all the surrounding tiles, and establishes us in the South. We can go for the other diamonds with a city to the south of that.
Cyc said:
I was trying to set a goal for the "what" (get all the gems) without trying to solve the "how" in that level of detail. However, the alternative would be to put city #2 near the gems and then build city #3 near the location you're suggesting. It would be nice to know what lies beyond the mountain range so that a good plan can be formulated.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Well, just so you know, I've posted a map showing the location. If you're considering placing a city due West of this site (on the coast), you'll have to due a lot of building to take advantage of a harbor. You'll aslo lose a lot of growth potential. It will also take an extra turn to get there. 
If you're considering moving one tile to the East, you'll lose the diamond.
If you're considering going deeper South to get more diamonds, you'll waste a lot of time getting there, lose shields to corruption, and have very minimal growth.
Correction: The tile N, NE of the city should read 2+1+1.
If you're considering moving one tile to the East, you'll lose the diamond. If you're considering going deeper South to get more diamonds, you'll waste a lot of time getting there, lose shields to corruption, and have very minimal growth.
Correction: The tile N, NE of the city should read 2+1+1.
Comnenus
AKA Kenshin
If we go 10 turns, are we actually going to get a Settler this tc? If not, then the discussion is moot, because we'll have a lot more explored by the time we do and can make a better decision.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Comnenius, we get a settler in 2 turns.
Comnenus
AKA Kenshin
Provolution said:
I know I just got up and have a lot of reading to catch up on, but I wasn't aware that we decided to change production to a settler. The screenie I've got from t12 shows warrior in 2.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Well, we stopped the TC, prior to T15, at T12, since we had to decide on shifting that to a settler in time. But I would prefer people to post the proposal in the City Proposal Thread, we grade and comment the proposal, and let Noldodan pick the two best and poll them, there is no need for this chaotic multipolling we have seen before.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
This is true, Comnenus. A Warrior in two turns. Although one of the reasons given for stopping the last Turn Chat was to consider changing production from a Warrior to a Settler, the Leader or Leaders who should have initiated the discussion failed to do so. This can be seen as said Leaders determining the Will of the People (WOTP) on their own without any input. This will probably be a constant problem throughout the game, as some feel they don't need the input from fledglings that elected them to Office. By not starting discussion on a topic, they can determine the outcome without much resistance.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Cyc
It seems that the economized version of the Ringi system will fly, and it will not fail as Fien Canadien mentioned, as this place accountability where it belongs.
This will also assure more transparency and participation.
Cyc, as you are so good with screenies and city localization, why not try your hand on reposting that screenie under the city proposal thread, with the tile values and considerations on how this city should be used, with reference to the
departments you deem they involve. Remember, the grading within the Judiciary will be the average between the three of you, and your own comments to your own proposal will be part of the public posting.
Yet, if that city location you mentioned is the best, the arguments will carry it.
It seems that the economized version of the Ringi system will fly, and it will not fail as Fien Canadien mentioned, as this place accountability where it belongs.
This will also assure more transparency and participation.
Cyc, as you are so good with screenies and city localization, why not try your hand on reposting that screenie under the city proposal thread, with the tile values and considerations on how this city should be used, with reference to the
departments you deem they involve. Remember, the grading within the Judiciary will be the average between the three of you, and your own comments to your own proposal will be part of the public posting.
Yet, if that city location you mentioned is the best, the arguments will carry it.
Similar threads
