GM-2 Masters of AWE?

[Skyfish]

Here is a tentative dotmap it really is not well thought out...

I personally hate not founding on fresh water as I feel an acqueduct saved is a huge boost in the early game but the position of Zimb just prevents us from doing better if we want to keep a 3-tile grid.

Now in retropsect it might have been better to move Zimb ot the grassland and we would have had almost all surrounding core cities on fresh water....

 

[Gothmog]

Funny, that's the same thing I got from my huts (CB from my first one) - except that I got a settler not an advanced tribe.

I remember reading that you will get the bonus shield from the BG once out of Despot gov, and maybe you need to grow to above size 6 too. Something like that. It was a reliable source (TheNiceOne or Bamspeedy IIRC).

An isthmus in the east? that's great! can't wait to see the new map. Maybe your simulposting one with me now as I don't see the save in your post either.

 

[Skyfish]

Exactly that's 3 simul-posting in a row !
Beautiful !
That's what I call team work : telepathy

And yes indeed once we grow to size 7, Zimb will produce one more shield whether we are in Despotism or not. A small compensation...

 

[Sirp]

Originally posted by Gothmog
Funny, that's the same thing I got from my huts (CB from my first one)

I believe that techs will always be the same: the least expensive non-optional ancient age tech, or the cheapest optional ancient age tech if all non-optionals are discovered. So...this isn't altogether unlikely.

I remember reading that you will get the bonus shield from the BG once out of Despot gov, and maybe you need to grow to above size 6 too. Something like that. It was a reliable source (TheNiceOne or Bamspeedy IIRC).

DaveMcW wrote an article on this. I'd have still moved off the bonus grass though, but there's a good argument for remaining on it.

Personally I vote that with so much fresh water around, we make BIG concessions to what our layout would be in order to get the fresh water.

-Sirp.

 

[Skyfish]

I vote that with so much fresh water around, we make BIG concessions to what our layout would be in order to get the fresh water.

Me too !
Also the main reason for me is that rivers prevent your 1-turn movement between cities anyway for a very long time. usuall y the time you need that grid for...
Also the isthmus is actually going to mean we will have a one sided front, which will help a lot.

Team : sorry about the no-move of the settler, there are as many arguments for then against it, if we had have one less BG in our borders I would have moved, it was real close decision...and a difficult one believe me. Maybe I should have polled the team.

 

[Gothmog]

Especially strange due to the large time difference between us Sky. We must live parallel lives.

About your dotmap I think city 4 can be moved closer to Zim and on the river, that would put it on the 3 square grid. I'll have to think about #3 too but it would be nice to have it on the river.

I'll also be wanting to explore the remaining fog to the west and north before going anywhere else. This is a Pangea so there is probably more land and civs either to the S-SW or NE in the fog there even with our nice isthmus.

@Bellisar - I wont get to play for at least 12 hours from now. You're in Europe too so that gives you all evening to make the upgrade work if possible and post an 'I got it'. If you haven't done it by then I'll take it.

 

[Gothmog]

I think you made the right decision - we've got enough productive squares for a settler factory anyway and will get that shield.

Yes it was DaveMcW - another highly reliable source of information. Though I think I was pointed to the article by a post from one of the others I mention.

 

[Gothmog]

Here's my dotmap - a three square grid if you can believe it!!

Ulundi does sort of mess with it, but you get the picture.

 

[Skyfish]

Wow it does look cramp in there but I jsut have to get used to that "exploitative" tight build

The placements are OK but the only one I really don't like is #4, it again takes a BG out and because of all the mountains it "parasites" heavily Zimb...

My idea would be a triangle of 3 cities 4 tiles, our inner core, with the outer core 3 tiles apart. Will illustrate my idea by a dot map soon.

 

[Gothmog]

Hey, get used to it. If we take out this world I want to do a AWD-CGC game then AWD.

 

[Skyfish]

Was just pulling your leg GM

Here is my proposal for a close grid with an extended core. All important cities are on fresh water.

 

[Gothmog]

pretty much like the strict three square grid but you put #2 on fresh water and opened up the grid a bit. I don't see any advantage to your white x's in the NW over the three square grid. As for your #4 being better due to leaving squares for Zim, I still say it wont affect it's ability as a settler factory so what's the problem? The three square grid city near your #3 is actually farther from Zim and still on fresh water.

Not trying to rag on you here, I just think we should go w/the three square grid unless there is a very good reason not to. IMO the three square grid get's us all of the good fresh water spots anyway. The only exception being the one directly north of Zim, a small concession and more than made up for by two more cities on the river NE of there.

We need some input here from Sirp, Belisar and CoffeeCup.

 

[Skyfish]

True.
Your number 3 is better than mine, that was an oversight.
Also the NW white X does not change a lot lets keep yours.

But I feel strongly about #2 it could become a power house with loads of BG in Despot time : if Zimb is a settler factory then we need a strong garrison city and that could be #2 !
Number 4 could go on the grassland just one square SW.
:rant: :rant:
I am ranting now ...so let's hear what the others think

 

[Belisar]

I got it, Skyfish but I will probably need one day, as I have no time this evening.

EDIT: I, too, would put Nr. 2 (actually, its Nr.3 because Skyfish was a bit lucky) on fresh water. Any problems to 'adjust' the 3-grid placement a bit?

 

[Gothmog]

OK Belisar's in, that's great and you got to upgrade to the latest patch in the bargain - nice.

The problem with your #2 as I see it is that it is then harder to get the second ring cities NE of there on the river; also, if you move #4 one square SW it's back where you had it in your first map and not on fresh water - unless you're talking about puting it on the three square grid, which I approve of.

I still like the three square grid when taking two full rings around our capital into account. The advantages of a true three square grid are very large and once roads are in place the first ring cities to the NE, N, NW, W and SW will all be 1 turn travel from the capital due to the river placement.

Let's hear what CoffeeCup and Sirp have to say.

 

[Coffee]

I would prefer to adjust for fresh water while limiting the overlap to hills & moutains. There doesn't seem to enough food gains to justify the extra city in this screenshot. So my preference goes to Sky's layout. Drop the center city and move the other 1 tile SW.

Who is isthmus?

 

[Gothmog]

An isthmus is: A narrow portion of land, enclosed on each side by water, and connecting two larger bodies of land; a neck of land.

Food isn't a problem for a long time IMO. Zimbabwe wont get over size 6 for the forseeable future, so that leaves plenty of squares for #4. There is fresh water everywhere so all those plains will be easily irrigated.

But if we're not going to go with a three square grid I like the way you have it above. I think that's what Sky was trying to say in his last post. I am running this game as a democracy and not as a monarchy so I don't mind being overruled by the majority (although I still disagree). If we do decide to go with the above layout then could we at least dotmap the rest of the visible area to see how all the forseeable cities will look?

 

[Sirp]

My vote is for Skyfish's dotmap: it makes good use of the land, and is fairly close to what I would have proposed.

Hmm...after this we could try an AWE that doesn't rely on dense builds

-Sirp.

 

[Coffee]

I did some extra dot mapping, tried to keep as close to a 3 square grid as possible and it doesn't make much of a difference.

I'm guessing that if and when growth is required, the center or other cities will be fishing villaged. If that is so, corruption becomes a problem and if thats the case then abandoning cities becomes an option. It almost makes me want to argue a planned abandonment strategy.

I'll pass on this one. What is IMO?

 

[Skyfish]

Coffee are some non-civ acronyms you will come across rather often :
IMO = In My Opinion
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
OTOH = On The Other Hand
ASFAIK = As Far As I know

Feel free to ask anytime as I am missing about 2000