1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Filler Cities?

Discussion in 'Civ2 - Game of Democracy II' started by GaryNemo, Nov 11, 2002.

?

What shall be our Policy regarding Filler Cities?

Poll closed Nov 15, 2002.
  1. A. I am a vocal supporter of Filler Cities -- see my post.

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  2. A. I am in the Silent Majority: Build some Fillers.

    2 vote(s)
    15.4%
  3. A. I am against Fillers, one every 500 years is plenty.

    4 vote(s)
    30.8%
  4. A. I am totally against Filler Cities. LN and GG are hurting us.

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  5. A. I abstain, yet feel that Fillers may have merit.

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  6. A. I abstain, yet feel that Fillers are no good.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. B. River Bridge (E E of Ren) is now a good idea!

    5 vote(s)
    38.5%
  8. B. River Bridge is not a consideration at this time!

    8 vote(s)
    61.5%
  9. CD. F4, Forest 3NW of REGIA CIVITAS - already Approved

    6 vote(s)
    46.2%
  10. CD. F5 TFalls Whale, Forest 2NW of TFalls

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  11. CD. Boreum River Bridge (E E of Ren) - needed NOW

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  12. CD. River Filler (A Plains between FA Dellham and Monks Towne)

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  13. CD. Central West Coast Filler (see instructions below)

    2 vote(s)
    15.4%
  14. CD. Isle of Beast Filler (see instructions below)

    2 vote(s)
    15.4%
  15. CD. Nemo, I am amazed you missed this Filler - see my post.

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  16. E. If MonkE plays a turn when we build no cities, that is sad.

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  17. E. If MonkE plays a turn when we build no cities, that is fine.

    9 vote(s)
    69.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. GaryNemo

    GaryNemo Settler from None

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Ohio, GMT-4
    Filler City: A City intended to stay small,
      never use squares needed by serfs of a nearby Great City,
      produce units and trade (not improvements, no Temple), and
      probably support one unit under Republic or Democracy.
    Little Nemo and Gabba Gabba are Filler Cities.

    Please consider Civil Disorder and the letter from Count Goldberg .

    Please vote for 1 A, 0-1 B, 1 2 or 3 CD priorities, and 1 E.
    Please, pick at most 3 CD Choices, to prioritise planning.

    River Bridge: Boreum, on River Bend E E of Ren.
    F4: Forest 3NW of REGIA CIVITAS, has 5 ocean.
    F5: Forest 2NW of TFalls, newly discovered Whale down there.
    River Filler: Chryshe, there are two open Plains,
      near the Tiny Lake, between Dellham and Legendary City.
    Central West Coast Filler: Chryshe West Indian Coast:
    A. Mtn SW of Fish, or S of Fish, or SE of Fish,
    B. Hills NE of Fish, Forest E of Fish, Desert NE of Forest.
    Isle of Beast Filler: Either NE Forest, to be determined later.

    This poll will be open thru Wednesday.
     
  2. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    Just to be technical, didn't the last poll say 'maybe' F4 should be built. ;)

    Riber bend is E E of Reneaux? I thought one of the ideas of a filler city is to never be in the radi of a main city? Otherwsie later on in the game it will make it impossible for the main city to use that tile for prodcution. If filler cities will be in the radi of a main city then I don't like any of them. I know they can produce in the short term, but shouldn't we also keep the long term in mind? Don't we want the main cities to be maxed out at some point? If there is a filler city in the main city radi, then it will always be short that tile for production.....?

    If any filler cities, then F4 looks to be the most decent of them all right now.

    BTW, screenshots, or even links to older shots would be most helpful in seeing where some of these things are being thought to go. Even map coordinates would help a bit. ;)
     
  3. ainwood

    ainwood Consultant. Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,068
    My view is that we have recently discovered some unclaimed land to the south-east. Settling this has to be a priority, otherwise we will have to take it off the AI later, which will be expensive in terms of time and units.

    We still have a few areas to settle on our own continent, not the least significant being up between Roskilde (are we still disbanding that?) and the Udal. Also north-west of Roskilde.

    Filler cities are good for generating support units, but I'd suggest that we have the capability to do that at the moment. Unless you want these support units to be shipped overseas to defend the newly discovered south-east lands. They will need a good defense in the medium term until they grow big enough to defend themselves (which makes me think that we should get a diplomat or two down there sharpish ;) )

    :)
     
  4. Zwelgje

    Zwelgje Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    3,953
    Right, I like fillers for caravan/unit production but I don't want them in the radius of major cities (OP or TF). Therefore I don't want a filler in the TF radius to use the whale, it's a pity we can't use it but we will be able to live with that. I don't want a filler to take away grow opportunity from a big town.

    Same goes for the river bridge filler, it's in the radius of OP and I don't want that. There is one tile up there that is unclaimed and we can build a filler there that can work a forrest tile from Eboracum for the time being. Building on top of this forrest tile is good as roading forrest takes ages. We need to road a bit more but we road good tiles: grassland with shield. We need to road all grassland with shield we have in city radiuses as these tiles are great: trade, food, shields.

    So I see advantages in the filler I propose over river bend filler. In the picture below I show my filler with needed roads in yellow and river bend filler with needed roads in orange.

    Thoughts?
     

    Attached Files:

  5. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I haven't voted yet. In general, the fillers are producing much for us. The main drawback for me is the proliferation of black dudes from having so many cities, but we seem to be managing OK.

    River Bridge is a special case. It is a great road bridge while we don't have Bridge Building and could produce units. Yet it is within OP's radius (quite distasteful). Also, it uses up a settler that could perhaps found a good city in the New Lands.

    As BB isn't a research priority until we need Railroad, it will require several roads on rough terrain to complete the network.

    I'm quite split on this and don't have an answer.
     
  6. Rout

    Rout ZZzzzzzz

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Location:
    Leeds UK
    I would be happy with fillers if each founding settler terraformed 1 hidden resource before settling the city.:(

    I never use fillers in my own game, but then I play completely diffenently to most people here it would seem. I also always play on a large map and theres no point in biuilding fillers when you can go colonise free land with 3- or 4- special cities.
     
  7. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I haven't used fillers before, either. But I still had more than 50 cities and thought that was a BIG job to manage. :crazyeye: Now I've started to play OCC and I can finish a game on the same day! :) The strategy is completely different, though.
     
  8. Zwelgje

    Zwelgje Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    3,953
    :lol:
    Micromanagment is a killer with so many cities. It's one of the reasons I started playing OCC, 2CC or 3CC. A limited number of cities means less work to do and less playing time per game.
    Anyway, I think at higher levels you need more cities to win, having many cities allows you to have huge armies and lots of trade.
     
  9. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I just wonder how long it took Andu Indorin to play the Annales of Rome game in the Timelines section. :eek: :crazyeye:
     
  10. GaryNemo

    GaryNemo Settler from None

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Ohio, GMT-4
    We just cannot resist chatting about City Plans, can we?

    I accept Civ1's plan about founding on Forest, the Yellow Plan. I accept this because it is ok, and so many people are SO Against the Boreum River Bridge. Too bad, but we must move on.

    In Viking War thread, a discussion has popped up about Fruit City. Let's build it on the Forest, serf on Fruit or Whale. The Fruit is 4 food, which takes care of the lousy Forest Food for now.

    The jungle is also suggested, 5NW of present Roskilde, on the tip. Fine, but clearing Jungle is a huge time waster. By comparison, the other Fillers I have proposed will generate instant productivity.

    I am not going to poll for a name for Khorsabad until we decide to keep it or disband it. I'd be happy to keep it, but I can see advantages to disbanding, both political and future productivity. Of course, it is a horrible waste of productivity to disband.

    I can play a Gotm in a month, with thorough micro management and many dozens of cities. A pleasure. And that is fast for me. I used to play the same game for 6 months or so.
     
  11. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I just suggested 5 NW of Roskilde as maybe a better site than the forest there. Not a priority at all.

    If I have an overall priority, it is to boost trade, build Mike's, and get to Republic. I want to produce tons of beakers so we may take a huge lead in tech. To that end, keeping Khorsabad and managing it for fastest growth is the way to go.

    We are deliberately limiting the growth of our cities. It's already AD 260. Seeing Delhi at size 8 when the best we have is one size 5 and one size 4 is a bit discouraging. It has been a long time since I've played a game where I felt so strangled for growth. :(
     
  12. Zwelgje

    Zwelgje Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    3,953
    On disbanding Khorsabad:
    It depends how big the island is: if what we see now is the entire island, I like to disband and move one NW. Than we have 2 tiles and a fish special for the filler that can be placed on the southern tip of the island. So in total we don't win one special with moving but two!
    If the island continues in the northern direction with plenty of room to found more cities, I'd say leave it like it is. I think it's a waste with an island like this to found only one city but if we can fit in another one to the north I'd be happy with the result.
    It is a free city after all! :)
     
  13. GaryNemo

    GaryNemo Settler from None

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Ohio, GMT-4
    Well, Leowind and MonkE are chatting about Boreum River Bend Bridge Filler in ... Turn 260AD. Leowind likes the other Fillers, thinks this River Bridge has more going against it. It has surely been sailing upwind since conception! I think building Roads Takes Time, so this Filler has more going For It. Anyway, this is it's last chance, and it's loosing ... Bridge Science is far away.
    Waaaaaaa . There, I fell better.

    Looking at Civ1's nice picture above: The Orange F is timely, and safe. The Yellow F is a liability. Later, some century. So I now prefer F4 and River Filler (A Plains between FA Dellham and Monks Towne), say W W of Dellham. We can found it with the Reneaux Settler, the moment it finishes the Coal Mine, then Ren changes from Caravan to Settler.
     
  14. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Wasn't the Ren settler earmarked for the NW whale city? Wouldn't that be a better city to build first? It only takes 2 more turns to reach and could be garrisoned with the LC archer (now on the mountain).

    Really, GaryNemo, I feel for ya. ;)
     
  15. GaryNemo

    GaryNemo Settler from None

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Ohio, GMT-4
    And if the Indians attack? Again? We have nothing! Whereas Safe Plains Filler, W W of Dellham, we believe may be safe.

    One or two Settlers are on their way to LC, and beyond to Indian Whale City. Somewhere we will build a Dip to escort them, along with the Archer you mention. GG could be changed to a Diplomat Right Now.
     
  16. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    I've considered your arguments, GN, and they do make good sense. I'm still new to this filler city concept and trying to understand its benefits and drawbacks. I would have to agree with Civ1 in not founding them within the radius of another city. That seems really wasteful to me, until and unless I am convinced otherwise ;)
    River Bridge in Boreum is a special case and I must admit I am really torn. Civ1 has proposed what seems a reasonable alternative, but it has its own drawbacks: longer to build all the necessary roads, and town open to attack. I guess my question is: Is the one turn's movement saved by having a bridge city worth taking future tile production away from Octavia's Point and possibly Reneaux?
     
  17. naervod

    naervod My current user title

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    5,327
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I really have no opinion on fillers. I think they have merit and support them but it doesn't matter to me what the outcome is here as long as it is in the best intrests of our nation.
     

Share This Page