Settlement locations
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Here are several sites which have been gleaned from previous discussion and adjusted for new terrain knowledge and to fit better with the cities we have already placed.
This one has popular appeal because it helps us connect the iron without having to build a temple or use up a worker on building a colony.
This map shows several options to the south of our capitol. Building this direction helps push away the Babylonians, though these cities may not be productive for a thousand years or more
This map shows one way of filling in the green pastures around Groton and Montpellier.
Finally, here is an option to try to deny resources to the Russians. I in this picture is the same as A, but moved one tile SE, and J corresopnds to B.
This one has popular appeal because it helps us connect the iron without having to build a temple or use up a worker on building a colony.
This map shows several options to the south of our capitol. Building this direction helps push away the Babylonians, though these cities may not be productive for a thousand years or more
This map shows one way of filling in the green pastures around Groton and Montpellier.
Finally, here is an option to try to deny resources to the Russians. I in this picture is the same as A, but moved one tile SE, and J corresopnds to B.
For spot "H", I think 1 tile NW would be better, since we won't waste a tile. Also, I think we need to plan those cities better, since it could be our future FP site, or somewhere near there. (I say FP, since we may have to move our palace at some point).
I looked at that, and thought the hill for defense would be better. Some of the other "misplacements" are to get direct fresh water with minimum disruption.
The lake NE of Montpellier messes things up, because it crowds C no matter where we try to put it. Looking back on it, I and J are a better version of A and B respectively. K is for resource denial, and again the best tile is not available -- the iron itself is the right place to build, but alas its on a mountain.
My personal preference is somewhat tighter than OCP but not as tight as ICS. Normally 12 tiles is enough unless you're planning on stretching the game out until the modern age. With this start, we can't afford to toy with it, we have to press hard right from the start. If it lasts that long, we're probably in trouble of some kind.
Just my 2 gold, and best effort interpretation of what people have been saying...
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
Some of these sites are getting pretty close to existing Russian and Babylonian territory. The Russians I'm not particularly worried about, but the Babs...
Site K is only a distance of 9 from the Babylonian capitol. If we settle here it will susceptible to flipping and I think increase the likelihood of conflict with the Babs. This will become our closest point with them - we will not be able to rely on the jungle slowing any potential invasion force, they will just be able to wander right up to our borders!
Site K is only a distance of 9 from the Babylonian capitol. If we settle here it will susceptible to flipping and I think increase the likelihood of conflict with the Babs. This will become our closest point with them - we will not be able to rely on the jungle slowing any potential invasion force, they will just be able to wander right up to our borders!
Babylon is growing toward our southern borders, through the jungle. To fend them off from our current capitol, we need to consider settling towards them.
Here is a map of proposed sites to the south for your discussion.
[edit]
S1 is moved 1SW of its natural optimimum placement to allow it to be on the river, and therefore save shields on an aqueduct. S2 and S3 are as close as we can get to the Babylonian town. These alignments will leave 5 jungle tiles unusable. [/edit]
Here is a map of proposed sites to the south for your discussion.
[edit]
S1 is moved 1SW of its natural optimimum placement to allow it to be on the river, and therefore save shields on an aqueduct. S2 and S3 are as close as we can get to the Babylonian town. These alignments will leave 5 jungle tiles unusable. [/edit]
IMHO S1 should not be moved (or should be moved 1 tile NE from the current picture. Reasoning:
- otherwise we leave extremely valuable land near our capital unused
- the jungle will prevent fast grow to >6 anyhow
- once we have 6 mined tiles, we have ample production with very little corruption to build an aqueduct extremely fast
In this screenshot I suggest some alternate locations for new cities, which IMHO are really worth going for.
Note that blue, green and light blue are at distance 5, the same as Vandelay and Huntington.
Black, white and orange are at distance 9.
I would strongly favor black as a gateway to the wines.
Blue is enough to protect us against Babylon.
Orange will be very usefull with a harbor in the future.
White will be productive and a valuable northern navy base.
PS: I would be willing to serve as Mayor of black.
Note that blue, green and light blue are at distance 5, the same as Vandelay and Huntington.
Black, white and orange are at distance 9.
I would strongly favor black as a gateway to the wines.
Blue is enough to protect us against Babylon.
Orange will be very usefull with a harbor in the future.
White will be productive and a valuable northern navy base.
PS: I would be willing to serve as Mayor of black.
looks good Tao.
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
I generally like taos arrangement.
Blue uses the good ground next to the capitol I think we can lose one tile to coast for that.
Orange I think will be useful strategically in the future if we can settle early enough to get our culture to expand over the land mass over the sea, it may give us a landing area for our troops in the future.
I would move Black and White a little though:
White I would move one SE, Black I would move E out to the coast. I think that this arrangement would make better use of the land/coast we can always fill in the desert with another city (purple) later. These moves still keep Black and White at a distance of 9 from the capitol.
I think we should review our settlement of site K in the east though. It will be next to a Babylonian City whose borders have already grown indicating culture and only 9 from the Babylonian capitol. We will not be denying Russia iron by building here as we have now found other iron in their territory. We would be better off positioning the Settler that was going there in one of the other sites in that area either A/I or B/J. Why build a city we will be unlikely to keep when we have so many other sites to settle?
Blue uses the good ground next to the capitol I think we can lose one tile to coast for that.
Orange I think will be useful strategically in the future if we can settle early enough to get our culture to expand over the land mass over the sea, it may give us a landing area for our troops in the future.
I would move Black and White a little though:
White I would move one SE, Black I would move E out to the coast. I think that this arrangement would make better use of the land/coast we can always fill in the desert with another city (purple) later. These moves still keep Black and White at a distance of 9 from the capitol.
I think we should review our settlement of site K in the east though. It will be next to a Babylonian City whose borders have already grown indicating culture and only 9 from the Babylonian capitol. We will not be denying Russia iron by building here as we have now found other iron in their territory. We would be better off positioning the Settler that was going there in one of the other sites in that area either A/I or B/J. Why build a city we will be unlikely to keep when we have so many other sites to settle?
I looked at your proposal in my Photoshop version of the placement map and see your argument. However I still strongly prefer the sites as proposed by me:
- black has tremendeous food because of the floodplains and the wheat; what it needs are shields and these come from the mountain
- because of high food low shields, the postion not requiring an aqueduct gets my preference
- white could be at either location, but if black is founded as proposed by me, it should not be moved SE
- expect the other locations suggested by you to be occupied soon by "yellow" settlements, I'm afraid
[/list=1]
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
I cetainly agree there! It's just that my Photoshop version is covered with potential sites and I hadn't switched off those layers!
As for the food/shields issue, my black site would still have a good few floodplains and some mines on the plains would do the job for the shields. It'll be a while before we're ready to grow the city beyond 6, so I'm not too worried about having to build the Aquaduct. The position of the white site as you say depends on the black.
edit: just to add that the purple site and the white site N of Orange, NW of Green are both also at a distance of 9 completing the ring over that side.
There have been some suggestions to divert settler K to a different site, for three main reasons:
- It is so close to Babylon that it is a flip risk
- It doesn't deny iron to Russia because there is another source
- It will be highly corrupt and there are better, less corrupt sites available.
[/list=1]
There is still one good possible reason to build on K, and that is if it denies iron to Babylon. We could still build there, and start on a temple for local culture. If a FP is build in Groton as previously suggested, then K becomes a 2nd ring city for the FP and would have a chance to be productive.
Discussion please, on diverting the people heading for K to either I or J.
Also there have been several maps proposed, but not a whole lot of discussion on exactly which site should be the top priority. I'd like to have some opinions before tossing out a poll, which would have to go up in 4 hours in order to be available 24 hours before the next scheduled chat.
We are in a bad situation due to the "Demogame Factor". The obviously best action would be to
- make map trades to know whether the AIs have iron and/or horses in their territory which is just not connected, and
- based on this intelligence make the decision on the settlement location.
[/list=1] AFAIK this is not possible within the rules.
Thus I advocate J, because- it may deny horses to Russia
- with a large stack of horsemen we could capture any future Russian city in the case that we loose our iron before we build swords
- being on a hill, it is better defendable vs. barbs and future enemies.
[/list=1]
PS: As I argued before (several times actually) Groton should be switched to barracks immediately (which are overdone already) and build a worker next to mine the bonus grasland and afterwards connect the iron.
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
Youre right Dave its too easy to get carried away with the Grand Plan and forget that we have to decide where the Settler is to go for the next turnchat. I think we need to get our core cities settled now which would bring it down to blue, green or cyan proposed by tao and myself. Blue would put a city between our capitol and the Babs, however its only got one good tile thats not jungle and we need production. This leaves cyan and green. I think I would go for green first although like Vo Mimbre it will need irrigation on the plains to grow, then mines to balance the population at the right level. It should then produce troops well.
As for diverting the settler denying Babylon Iron is the only reason not to as far as I can see. So do the Babs have Iron or not? Well its not listed as a tradeable resource for them, but they may not have connected it up yet. But consider AI behaviour in settling cities the AI knows where the resources are and will settle near them. The Babs have settled several cities since they discovered Iron Working, one of which is very near to site K, but not close enough to claim the iron. If this was potentially their only source of iron I would have expected them to have already settled near it. I therefore believe that the Babs have Iron elsewhere and we should divert the Settler. Of the 2 potential sites you mention site I would better consolidate our position, J would deny horses to the Russians but string out our territory still further. If we want to go for J, now is the time to do it as I dont think well have the option soon.
As for diverting the settler denying Babylon Iron is the only reason not to as far as I can see. So do the Babs have Iron or not? Well its not listed as a tradeable resource for them, but they may not have connected it up yet. But consider AI behaviour in settling cities the AI knows where the resources are and will settle near them. The Babs have settled several cities since they discovered Iron Working, one of which is very near to site K, but not close enough to claim the iron. If this was potentially their only source of iron I would have expected them to have already settled near it. I therefore believe that the Babs have Iron elsewhere and we should divert the Settler. Of the 2 potential sites you mention site I would better consolidate our position, J would deny horses to the Russians but string out our territory still further. If we want to go for J, now is the time to do it as I dont think well have the option soon.
Blue is vital to protect our core vs barbarians (and Babylonians) from the south. But black, orange, green and light blue are just as important.
If we build some horsemen, attacks from the NW can easier be detered, especially because the mountains give our units greater visual range. Thus I would build blue first, but not lightheartedly.
Why oh why don't we have granaries yet ...
If we build some horsemen, attacks from the NW can easier be detered, especially because the mountains give our units greater visual range. Thus I would build blue first, but not lightheartedly.
Why oh why don't we have granaries yet ...
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I would like to express my opinion on this matter again. 
First off, I think it would be a very bad idea to trash the last (existing poll on City Location. The people have spoken, the IA Minister has given us our best options, the deed is done. If would make us look a lot worse if we changed directions now, trashed a poll, and said sorry, we don't know what we're doing....
Second, way back when in the begining of time, I proposed locations just like Furiey and Tao. In Tao's proposal, I would have moved both Black and White 1 tile to the SE. Those would have been perfect locations. Furiey has moved White to that location, but moved black 1 tile East. This will work, too I suppose.
Third, for our next City Location, I would choose Green, then Black or White. Green is close enough and potent enough to do us some good immediately.
First off, I think it would be a very bad idea to trash the last (existing poll on City Location. The people have spoken, the IA Minister has given us our best options, the deed is done. If would make us look a lot worse if we changed directions now, trashed a poll, and said sorry, we don't know what we're doing....
Second, way back when in the begining of time, I proposed locations just like Furiey and Tao. In Tao's proposal, I would have moved both Black and White 1 tile to the SE. Those would have been perfect locations. Furiey has moved White to that location, but moved black 1 tile East. This will work, too I suppose.
Third, for our next City Location, I would choose Green, then Black or White. Green is close enough and potent enough to do us some good immediately.
Well, it wouldn't be done by trashing the poll, it would be done by having another poll to see if the people want to change direction. There is no reason to consider every poll final, the people can always change directions via another poll.
Failing to bring up the topic for discussion, at least, once it has been raised would be even worse IMHO, because it would show an unwillingness to listen to advice. Advice has been given toward both sides of the question, and it is certainly not overwhelming toward either side.
