General Turn Discussion

[Memphus]

so one more NW (7) or start heading SW (3)?

 

[Krill]

Depends how much we want to explore the south. If we don't mind not exploring it, we can afford three more turns north west, then one south west and then just head straight back to the marked tile and be there for turn 18. Personally, I don't like that idea, but they are the numbers. I'd say at most one more turn north west, then one south west. looking at the map, I really want a second warrior, I just can;t find a way to shoe horn one in without completely screwing up the settler.

On a side note, I think if we are to settle in the marked location, we need to get a warrior up to that desert tile to see if we have any food in the sea up there. If we don't, I think we ought to move that city location a little further south, so that the coastal city is jammed in there with no food.

 

[Viva_Chingon]

I still like the idea of swinging south to get a better idea of what is around the capitol. In that case, I like the red path in the warrior movement diagram here.

 

[General_W]

I'm still stewing on which way I think the Warrior should move next.
I'll let you know when I have an opinion!

@Memphus - it looks like the other teams are settling into the pattern of "Your CFC name [Team Name]" for logging in.
I like the Council of 3 thing... but I think it'd probably be better for consistency's sake if you used "Memphus [SANCTA]" for playing our team turns. Or even "Memphus 1 of 3 [SANCTA]" would be fine

Just my 2 cents! You're doing a great job for the team.

 

[Memphus]

haha i only put council of 3 because that is what the poll said i can swithc it up next turn

 

[remake20]

Does that tile that you said we should settle on have the production we need? We need to make a quick dissension since we're only two teams away. I vote SW.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I think one more NW works, then swinging south.

We seem to have a lot of food - I assume there is something this direction, just don't know if it's happiness or copper or what.

 

[remake20]

We need to see if that placement will get us enough production. We might also need stone to build Stonehenge. What I usually do is build Stonehenge and then wait to research calendar until we expanded enough and got some culture from our cities. BTW anyone got any ideas on what victory you want to go for?

 

[Memphus]

looking closer at the map NW won't reveal to much...there is forest everywhere

 

[dutchfire]

1SW seems best now, the area to the north seems to have too many hills to be good for settling.

 

[remake20]

there is forest everywhere

There are... and forests. It just makes it so much easier to read.

 

[Theoden]

I'm not good enough at fog gazing to make a qualified guess, but have we actually considered the possibility that there might be so many mountains as to considerably block our explorer's path and force us to make a detour or cross back through already explored terrain?

We need to see if that placement will get us enough production. We might also need stone to build Stonehenge. What I usually do is build Stonehenge and then wait to research calendar until we expanded enough and got some culture from our cities. BTW anyone got any ideas on what victory you want to go for?

Stonehenge lasts until Astronomy in BtS, IIRC.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

But we don't really need stonehenge for culture, since we expand on our own.

Instead of NW, should we just go W? My guess is that the area North of us is ours, anyway - other civs will be W, E or S of us.

 

[Memphus]

There are... and forests. It just makes it so much easier to read.

Maybe....

It depends on how you interpret what I said. While this isn't a grammar lesson…. I will defend my statement.

If I was standing in front of 1 Forest (in RL) I would say:

There is forest everywhere.

Now if I was revering to the forests of Canada for example, It would be grammatically correct to say:

There are forests everywhere .... (across Canada)

So in the context of our Warrior if he moves NW the question becomes is there more than 1 forest? Well how do you define a forest in ?

Is it 1 tile of forest? Or if that tile of forest connects to another tile of forest, is that considered 1 forest or 2 forests?

If you assume each tile is indeed it own unique forest then my statement was technically grammatically incorrect.

However if you assumer that tiles with forest side by side are in fact one larger forest then my statement could be correct. We won't know for a couple of turns until the FoW is revealed to the north of the peak (blue circle on the attachment).

So if the blue circle or some other combination of tiles north of the blue circle connects that forest to the other forest, we in fact only have 1 forest and thus the statement:

“There is forest everywhere” is grammatically correct.

 

[General_W]

I think the forest/forests argument is convincing. It really limits the value of scouting more in the NW.

I"m leaning towards moving our warrior to the SW (1) next.

EDIT: 0h - and who logged into our save as just "Sancta" ? It's really helpful if you keep your CFC name in there.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Run Forrest, run!!

 

[remake20]

Maybe....

It depends on how you interpret what I said. While this isn't a grammar lesson…. I will defend my statement.

If I was standing in front of 1 Forest (in RL) I would say:

There is forest everywhere.

Now if I was revering to the forests of Canada for example, It would be grammatically correct to say:

There are forests everywhere .... (across Canada)

So in the context of our Warrior if he moves NW the question becomes is there more than 1 forest? Well how do you define a forest in ?

Is it 1 tile of forest? Or if that tile of forest connects to another tile of forest, is that considered 1 forest or 2 forests?

If you assume each tile is indeed it own unique forest then my statement was technically grammatically incorrect.

However if you assumer that tiles with forest side by side are in fact one larger forest then my statement could be correct. We won't know for a couple of turns until the FoW is revealed to the north of the peak (blue circle on the attachment).

So if the blue circle or some other combination of tiles north of the blue circle connects that forest to the other forest, we in fact only have 1 forest and thus the statement:

“There is forest everywhere” is grammatically correct.

Never Mind.

 

[Krill]

It looks like the tile 44 of the warrior isn't a forest, so but moving 7 or 1 we can see the tile 444 anyway. Considering we'll probably want a coastal city to the north of the warrior at some point, any landlocked city will likely be settled, at most, at hthe same latitude as the warrior, working the tiles to the warriors south west. If the warrior moves 7, it will unveal the tiles (44, 41, 441, 444, 47) of where he is now. Moving him 1 will likely reveal the tiles (11, 41, 44, 444, 47 and 447). The only difference is that moving 1 reveals 447 and moving 7 reveals 441, and the by moving 1 we can explore more of the south before reaching the cow.

So for the purposes of revealing FoW looking for food for a landlocked western city, there isn't alot of difference. Moving 7 is only good if we then want to move 9 and look for coastal food to settle in those hills, whereas moving 1 helps us search the south.

I'd chalk that up as a toss up. There ought to be food in this region somewhere unless Sullla is an evil...so it's either to the south, to the warriors west or in the sea, and I think we want to search the south as well for copper sources, so I think moving 1 is best for the warrior.

 

[Ronnie1]

I vote to move 1.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I have been persuaded that 1 is good