Office of Expansion-Settlement Discussion 2

[MOTH]

My vote goes for spot #2, war or no war.

I'm in favor of the settler factory. It should be able to grow very fast as it can share one of Camelot's Wines as soon as it is size 2 and Camelot's Granary finishes.

I'm also in favor of eventually moving/abandoning it.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

That city WILL have corruption, too, so factor that in. I also don't like abandoning cities, nor placing them 1 tile from rivers, so for now, I'm voting for space site 1 moved a tile SW.

 

[YNCS]

If there is only one spot that gives us a settler factory then the question becomes do we want a settler factory or not? If the answer is yes then deciding where to build our next city is simple. I'll stop here because I think we need a settler factory. I'll be voting for site number 2.

I thought that Camelot was our settler factory. Four bonus food meets my requirements for a settler factory.

I still want to put the next city on the coastal hill SE of the NW cow.

 

[donsig]

I thought that Camelot was our settler factory. Four bonus food meets my requirements for a settler factory.

I still want to put the next city on the coastal hill SE of the NW cow.

All I've heard proposed for Camelot are warriors and curraghs...

If we do not build on spot two then our only hope for a settler factory of some sort is Camelot - which means we won't be building boats there for a while. Or if we do build boats there then it's not being used as a settler factory. I think we're better off using site two as a temporary settler factory and letting Camelot grow so it can build boats and military units for our ever expanding empire.

 

[Xerol]

You claim that the coastal site 1 would take more worker turns to hook up when in fact the difference is nothing compared to the coastal advantage of the city. Unfortunately our warrior is busy scouting out India, but if he weren't, we should look at what's off the coast there -- if there's a fish of some kind, once we get a harbor there that's a +3 food tile (+4 out of despotism).

All in all, I think we would get more use out of 3 mini-settler factories (Camelot and sites 1 & 2 in my picture) than from a single dedicated one. We could probably go warrior, settler in the inland city, and boat, settler, warrior, settler in the coastals. The only disadvantage is having to build three granaries.

Also, even though we may fill up our space rather quickly(depending on what's NE), we can use our boats to go around these civs and possibly fill in other gaps even after our original area has been filled.

So, in the most recent image, if you move (1) one tile SW and (2) 1 tile W we could end up having 3 seperate combo pumps going within 20-30 turns or so, or less, depending on where/when we build and/or capture workers.

 

[Bertie]

I vote for spot #2, and like the idea of having two oscillating settler factories. We need to produce as many settlers as we can as quickly as possible. IMO we'll need to claim land quickly or we may risk being caught in a geographic box. We won't know this for sure until our explorers push back the black at the frontiers, but we already know India may block our expansion to the northwest. The north and east are mysteries, but with 11 opponents it's highly likely another civilization is nearby. I also agree with those that suggest we may want to dismantle this city when its utility is over.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

All I've heard proposed for Camelot are warriors and curraghs...

If we do not build on spot two then our only hope for a settler factory of some sort is Camelot - which means we won't be building boats there for a while. Or if we do build boats there then it's not being used as a settler factory. I think we're better off using site two as a temporary settler factory and letting Camelot grow so it can build boats and military units for our ever expanding empire.

Camelot is finishing the current warrior, then building a settler then granary for the settler factory.

 

[mad-bax]

I selected spot 2 because it can share tiles with camelot. Not doing so means that one wine will not be used 2 turns from 3. By sharing tiles you are actually saving worker turns, and you don't have to wait for tiles to be improved. Thus the city gets up and running quicker. Add to this the fact that site 2 can pump settlers in 4 turns and there is little contest really.

Xerols comments are a perfectly reasonable argument. But moving site 2 to the coast does mean it will take 30 worker turns to connect as opposed to 17 and there is no way of telling what is offshore. Using exploration turns to reveal sea tiles rather than land tiles is tactically weak IMO.

 

[snipelfritz]

poll is here

 

[Xerol]

As you can see in the attached image, it's the same number of worker-turns to road to either of the Western cow sites.

EDIT: Oops, wrong picture.

 

[snipelfritz]

Do you have security cameras aimed at your neighbor's bird feeder?

 

[Xerol]

Actually that's our bird feeder, and I took the picture with my webcam from my window. You can't really see it(the window screen is permanent) but there was a falcon hanging around the neighborhood for a few days.

For anyone wondering, this was the pic that I accidentally clicked on when I uploaded:

 

[YNCS]

Let's settle first next to the birdfeeder and then on the bushes to the NE. Don't forget to mine the birdfeeder.

 

[donsig]

Let's settle first next to the birdfeeder and then on the bushes to the NE. Don't forget to mine the birdfeeder.

Excuse me, shouldn't the birdfeeder be irrigated? And can we get that falcon back to attack Ghandi?

 

[Chieftess]

Must be some secret Fanatannian military base or something...

 

[Xerol]

Actually, you can see the top of what's most likely Plums about 3 SE. Might be Apricots, I'm not sure which tree that is.

Anyway, back on topic: Unless someone else sees a better way that wasn't obvious to me, it'll take the same amount of time to connect either western cow location.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

do we even have bird feeder technology yet? This is all very suspicious.

 

[mad-bax]

As you can see in the attached image, it's the same number of worker-turns to road to either of the Western cow sites.

Xerol:
When I first constructed the map I had site 1 to the SE of its shown location. I forgot that I had moved it. You are obviously correct. I have no issue now with moving that site to the coast. It is a better site for us depending on Tundra. It is still a little too distant for a second town for my liking. My argument for site 2 still stands. It's closer, and will be up and running more quickly, has 4 turn potential, will share wines with Camelot and therefore not waste those tiles so much and we will suffer less corruption due to settling progressively away from the capital rather that grabbing faraway land and backfilling which gives rise to higher corruption.

 

[Nobody]

don't we want our capital to have all its squares.

 

[DaveShack]

don't we want our capital to have all its squares.

This won't matter until quite a ways into the industrial age. In a large area of balanced food and shields, where there is enough workable land for enough cities, it is acceptable and even advisable to build far enough apart that there is no overlap. OTOH before hospitals, anything more than 13 tiles (including the center) is wasted. If the available space is small, then it would be advantageous to build closer.

What we don't know yet is how big the available space is.