Settler movement and RF production

[funxus]

NOTE
Fifth option was changed to:
B) Found city on forest NE of hill

'Clear forest first' was removed

After some discussions on mainly four topics in the turn thread, I will post a poll on how to deal with these issues.

First topic(A):
Shall we improve our capital with a road somewhere in the middle of nowhere (Buffalo), the grassland or maybe even both, or not at all?

Second topic(B):
Where shall we build our second city? What shall be our priority? Fast expansion but a "bad" city? Or a wellplaced city slowing down early expansion/development?

Third topic(C):
What shall we prioritize in our Capital? Science? Money? Production? Shall we build good defenses (Phalanxes)? Or warriors for happiness and let the archer (and later dips) defend our cities?

Fourth topic(D):
What shall be our main plan when founding new cities. Make present priority or the future priority.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

For:
'B) Found city on forest NE of hill (after being cleared)'

I would recommend building the city before clearing the forest. We can always clear the forest later and will get the production in the mean time. It looks like it would be good to pump out diplomats for city protection or caravans.

 

[funxus]

OK, unless someone disagrees with Duke's opinion, the option is changed to:
'B) Found city on forest NE of hill', without clearing the forest.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by funxus
OK, unless someone disagrees with Duke's opinion, the option is changed to:
'B) Found city on forest NE of hill', without clearing the forest.

changed.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I would plop the city in the woods right away, not wasting time to walk over, build a road and walk back. to get one arrow in the capital, you spend 6 extra turns going there and back before building the 2nd city which could be turning 2 trade arrows off the whale. Work the ocean in the capital to make up for the science, if only for a couple turns. Then work the grassland for the food to get a settler out. The settler from the capital can then build the first road. Also, if the 2nd city is on the forest, working the whale, it can build a warrior to defend the capital quickly, so the capital can build the settler as it's first thing.

City placement should be focused on short term growth and expansion. This terrain is not that great, so trying to plan for lots of specials and huge cities does not seem prudent. We can find spots for the big fat cities as we explore and expand. Get a quick foothold now.

 

[GaryNemo]

Good poll, I voted Road GLS, but I did not vote for any of the B's.

I think the Archer or Warrior will shortly resolve where to build a city with our None Settler. Studying the map and the Settler's movement, we have wasted merely two turns as it skirted the North shore of the lake. A shame, but minor.

If we must, the Fish Whale Forest site will be ok. That leaves the northern Pure Green as another good site. But I am very curious what lies south and west of RF.

 

[Shahadet]

Tim, an ally!

Whole heartedly agree with what he said. I don't see the point in roading the grassland shield square. It will only give us 1 extra trade arrow and 3 are required to get 2 beakers. I think its a waste of time. As Tim said, these are not the greatest areas for big cities so lets get more settlers and more explorers out there to find better spots. To do this however we need to get some cities going, even if they are to be used as slaves. I say stick the city on the hill, work the ocean square in the capital and pop the hut.

 

[TheViking]

I didn't vote for either of the A's because I think the moment our capital build settlers the settlers should head to whatever nice site we've discovered and found a city there.

We should definitely found a city in the forest instead of the hill - it means more short term growth which means settlers earlier than if we built the city on the hill. This in turn speeds up our expansion. Also we should expand fast since the terrain isn't very good.

Regia Fanatica should IMO build warriors that should be used for exploration but the archer should soon head for the capital to defend it.

I'm not concerned about science at the moment, production (use the buffalo square !) is far more important now to produce settlers and units to explore. We can catch up with the others in the science race once we have more cities, also stealing tech is fun .

 

[Jayne]

I also didn't vote for any A's. We need to get another town built ASAP which will give us good trade to get the science going. My preference is to build on the hill. The NE green can be used for a city later.

GaryNemo wrote:Studying the map and the Settler's movement, we have wasted merely two turns as it skirted the North shore of the lake. A shame, but minor.

I don't understand what you mean. We went that way to pop the hut we started with.

 

[Shahadet]

I would like to know why wes hould waste several turns to put a road on a grassland square. It will not give us the 3 trade required for 2 beakers. Will be useless even when the city size reaches 2 (shortly before going back to 1 from a settler). So why has this option been chosen so much?

 

[Jayne]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we'd surely get more trade short-term from building a city now (even the hill one) than building roads. We're going to need to get expanding quickly.

 

[Shahadet]

Can't the President make an over riding decision based on what she believes to be in the best intrests of the empire?

 

[Zelig]

I would have liked to mine the hill, but it looks like not many people support that, so I voted to found a city on the foest immediately.

I don't think we should bother improving terrain now, and should rather concentrate on growth.

For C I think we should expand as quickly as possible, but not at the expense of good cities.

 

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Shahadet
Can't the President make an over riding decision based on what she believes to be in the best intrests of the empire?

I could do.... but run the risk of not being trusted and never elected again!!! However, if the results are inconclusive, I can go with what I think is best

 

[funxus]

The poll will be open for another day, until Jayne plays, but here's the current status:

6 out of 12, i.e. 50%, have voted to road the GLS (including me I think), and I realize we won't gain anything by doing it. So, let's found on the forest right away (unless new voters change the situation).

Working the buffalos eems to get the most votes, but the ocean is a close second.

I assume there will be a discussion before every city is placed, so they will hopefully be well-planned, but most people are for building the cities as soon as possible and not improve before, or move extra long ways to a better spot.

 

[GaryNemo]

Well, well. There are many good ideas, some conflicting. Given the wildly varying interest, this poll is difficult to interpret. I go with funxus, move E and found on Forest for the Fish and Whale. I hope we change RF to Warrior and send it out a few turns, then back as police while RF completes a Settler.

Jayne, I trust you. The "wasted turns" were not to pop the first hut for the None Archer. I believe there was a poll ordering it to move with the Archer. To me, that was legal, but "wasted" compared to moving back to Road the RF GLS.

So here we are, the Settler can still move, and found on Forest. But what about popping the hut? Is that resolved? And can the Archer PUHLEEZE continue to explore? We need to find more Green, or a River.

 

[Leowind]

The Office of Scientific Research is modifying it's position a bit. Science Advisor Leowind has voted for founding immediately on the forest, and urges the citizens of CFC to do likewise. A second city will do more for increasing trade/science then walking about and roading squares at this point. 'A' choices were skipped completely-do neither!

First settler out of RF should road the GSL, then off the whatever city site has been found for it by then.