My Expansionism plan

Krabius

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
95
Location
Estonia
Scroll down to see the image... you cant miss it :D

I think that we must strengthen our borders! If we accomplish this plan Babylonians and other nations wont expand their city's in inner Fanatica. That will leave the desert (in the top) defended from their settlers and we can build city's there later, when the time comes. Of course we will need combat units to defend, i say 2 spearman in every town, but minister of defence will decide probably.

This plan will take time but it will be worth it.

Please say if you like it or not... What are this plan minuses?
 
please move this thread to Civ3 - Demo Game IV: Citizens forums and delete this double post thank you!
 
I know I gonna get banned for a 2 time double post put scroll down ;)
 
Here it is...
 

Attachments

  • novo.jpg
    novo.jpg
    251.9 KB · Views: 181
hi, i cant see what your talking about. it dosent work.
 
look again a bit to the top :)
 
It might work, but the problem is

1) The AI's will likely try to cross our terrority to get to the desert, forcing us to order them out, which hurts are rep with them, and could cause a war.

2) Remember the AI's are also expanding, one might grab one of those spots before we can get them, espicially sense it'll take some time to get settlers down to those points.
 
You are right, but as Tao said in another post, we can slave those settlers that will move to the desert quite easily.

But the time is on the Babylonian side, they already got 4 (or more) settlers and probably will expand closer to us.

But we still can move closer at least to the Russian border.
 
It is tao, please, not Tao.

Did you check the rcp distances of the sites you propose w.r.t. our other existing and planned cities?

Do we agree that war with Babylon is unavoidable? I think so.

Thus why should we build cities in the jungle which are hard to defend and need a lot of worker turns to improve? Wouldn't it be better to to have easily defendable strong cities with short supply lines (Huntington, Santa Lucia)? Wouldn't it be better to use our precious settlers to found cities which will increase our strength faster than jungle villages?

IMHO the first war against Babylon will very likely not be conclusive. If we let them settle in the jungle, we can capture theses weeak towns (maybe raze them) and they will give us more for peace.

I see one possible exception where I would have placed the city: on the westcoast south of the river. But since we did not build granaries our expansion was far to slow and now there are better places to settle. Maybe even on the western continent claiming a luxury. Hopefully those voting on the trades will allow to acquire the respective maps.
 
Why are you suggesting we by-pass those nice and plenty Bonus Grasslands SW of MontPellier ?

I don't like this plan; it is going too far to the south and not settling enough in or near our core.

Mûre was 1 mistake; don't make 5 mistakes. Let Groton / Sanction be our Western border (for now), Huntington / Santa Lucia our southern border (for now) and grab the land in between.

We will isolate Mûre that way; but it is undefendable, especially against flipping. That is the price we pay for mistakes.
 
Well ok I understood youre positions. The west continents really does have 2 incense resources free, so we can settle there.
 
I played the save and traded with Greeks WM... Is that illegal?
 
just edit that post and no1 gets CCed... hopefully

Thanks for the advice, but i dont turn my back to the things I have done. So if I done a wrong thing anyone can sue me :)

I'll study the laws now, what can and cant do around here.
 
Back
Top Bottom