We're likely to produce a 2nd settler very soon, so the assembly needs to select the next city site as soon as possible. For the moment, I'll leave the exact location wide open for citizen input, though I'm all for settling near the bronze. 
Next settlement location
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Swissempire
Poet Jester
After looking at the screenshot postet by swiss, i would prefer if we moved the city looking 1 tile to the left, so we can use the western resources. It would overall increase the amount of land we get under our borderlines until we settle with a city in on the western coast.
Although it will delay the access to bronze for about 8 turns.
Although it will delay the access to bronze for about 8 turns.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
I propose the following city placements:
Placement 1 Red:
Yes, I know the border is drawn wrong on this one, give me a break. Anyway, the access to the sea/coast should be plenty to give the city enough food to grow, and the surrounding hills/forests should make it a production powerhouse. Also puts us into range for Bronze.
Placement 2 Blue:
It isn't going to be much of a city, but the nearby sea/coast should make it grow pretty fast, and if any resources pop-up in that area... then all the better.
Placement 3 Lime Green:
4 hill inside of the city radius, pigs, and easy access to the sea/coast. Hopefully one of those hills will have iron on them, making this city a production and growth powerhouse.
Placement 4 Aqua:
Fresh water and sea/coast nearby. Should grow pretty fast, and have little health concerns. Don't think it'll do very good production wise though.
Placement 5 Pink:
Sea access and plenty of hills/forests in the radius. Should turn out to be pretty powerful.
*None of these are numbered by which order we should settle them. IE: We don't have to settle Placement #2 right after placement #1.
Placement 1 Red:
Yes, I know the border is drawn wrong on this one, give me a break. Anyway, the access to the sea/coast should be plenty to give the city enough food to grow, and the surrounding hills/forests should make it a production powerhouse. Also puts us into range for Bronze.
Placement 2 Blue:
It isn't going to be much of a city, but the nearby sea/coast should make it grow pretty fast, and if any resources pop-up in that area... then all the better.
Placement 3 Lime Green:
4 hill inside of the city radius, pigs, and easy access to the sea/coast. Hopefully one of those hills will have iron on them, making this city a production and growth powerhouse.
Placement 4 Aqua:
Fresh water and sea/coast nearby. Should grow pretty fast, and have little health concerns. Don't think it'll do very good production wise though.
Placement 5 Pink:
Sea access and plenty of hills/forests in the radius. Should turn out to be pretty powerful.
*None of these are numbered by which order we should settle them. IE: We don't have to settle Placement #2 right after placement #1.
Nomad Bryce
Innovian UU Cannon Turtle
I like your proposal Strider, except I think position #4 should be moved one space north, we have plenty of water, but that forest three spaces north will go unused with the current setup, and I hate letting any land go to waste. Also I feel 2 and 5 should switch priority orders.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Nomad Bryce said:
Well... the orginal idea was to have another city appro. 1 tile down and 3 or 4 tiles left of #4. That city spot just didn't fit on the map to well though, so I didn't bother putting it.
Also, their numbered just for easy referencing, the numbers is not a suggestion on what order we should settle those cities. Of course, #1 should be our next settlement, just for the fact of bronze. However, I think #4 or #5 should be one of the placements after that.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
I like red, and Ike
This must be decided before the next play session, so we really need to get moving on it.
Here are two alternatives for city3, assuming we want the copper to be in our borders.
City location for less overlap with Boaring Wallow, but some plots left unworkable without adding a "fishing village" type city later.
Strider's site #1 (overlap plots marked in this map)
Let's poll these two sites.
Here are two alternatives for city3, assuming we want the copper to be in our borders.
City location for less overlap with Boaring Wallow, but some plots left unworkable without adding a "fishing village" type city later.
Strider's site #1 (overlap plots marked in this map)
Let's poll these two sites.
Bengeance
Civ Retributioner
I agree that placing the city 1 tile W of the copper is best. It would be very unlikely to run into issues with tile overlap between Boaring Wallow and City3 anytime in the near future because of the relatively low populations and large number of forests around the capital. It also gives us access to the copper as fast as possible and is already connected by road to the capital.
cIVpassIVe
Chieftain
I agree with the 1 tile W of copper placement, for the reasons stated by others above, and for the fact I would rather overlap three forested squares with our beloved capital and pick up access to both the grassy hill and the grasslands (4 tile W of copper). There is the added benefit of having access to the forests of 5 tile W of copper without losing out on any out production within the city.
Locating 2 tile W of copper not only would overlap 2 tiles with our beloved capital, it would include two "worthless" squares in the southwest. One less overlap for the addition of two nominal squares is not optimal.
Locating on the grassy hill itself not only overlaps 4 tiles with our beloved capital, it also relies on the rather "worthless" dessert hill for future production. Overlapping an additional tile while increasing dependence on a nominal square is not optimal.
The downside to this placement, as DaveShack pointed out, is the loss of a "fishing village" from Strider's map. But, IMHO, that city looks doomed to marginality from the start while taking away productive tiles from better placed cities.
Just my three cents.
Locating 2 tile W of copper not only would overlap 2 tiles with our beloved capital, it would include two "worthless" squares in the southwest. One less overlap for the addition of two nominal squares is not optimal.
Locating on the grassy hill itself not only overlaps 4 tiles with our beloved capital, it also relies on the rather "worthless" dessert hill for future production. Overlapping an additional tile while increasing dependence on a nominal square is not optimal.
The downside to this placement, as DaveShack pointed out, is the loss of a "fishing village" from Strider's map. But, IMHO, that city looks doomed to marginality from the start while taking away productive tiles from better placed cities.
Just my three cents.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
I'm in some serious pain here, could someone sum up the locations and post a screenies
The location southeast of copper would propably 'steal' those piggies from our capital. At the moment however, it seems reasonable to expect our capital to grow into a gp -farm some time in the future... If so, it will need all the food it can get.
I'd go with daveshacks' proposition. 1W of copper looks just fine, doesnt it?
I'd go with daveshacks' proposition. 1W of copper looks just fine, doesnt it?
