In the recent discussion of city locations the idea of boxing in France has come up, I belive this is an interesting tactic which we might want to consider seperate from the issue of our next city location. Basicly what I'm wondering is are people willing to support a general strategy of blocking them in to prevent them becoming a large power. This general strategy could be passed as a non-binding poll reminding citizens and officials that future cities should be placed in locations which will halt the expansion of the French empire.
The situation as of now on the world map shows that Orleans is located on a thin ithsmus, by building two or three cities around Orleans our culture could block expansion of their settlers. Speed will be necessary if this plan is to work, we will need to turn out settlers rapidly because every city they found outside Orleans will make the formation of a buffer more difficult.
The benefits of a smaller France are obvious, they are an agressive civ and the smaller they are the few units they can field, also they will have less access to resources. Because we won't be competing for land with the French there will be more land to be had peacefully.
However there are also downsides, If France is boxed in their only option for expansion will be war, we'll have to remain wary of their military, also the line of cities that will be necessary will not be as coherent as we would likely create under normal circumstances. This will make us more vulnerable to attack and increase our maitence by distance from capital.
If we were to do this I would suggest our next city be founded in the gold cow location, this location will be necessary in a plan to block them in, and founding it first will provide us the opportunity to stop the plan if France expands quickly, begining with a city further to the west might get us stuck with a supposed buffer city surrounded by French territory.
If after the gold cow city is founded our next settler finds an opening around the propsed "coppertown" location that would be the obvious 2nd city site, then our third settler could found on the coast.
Another plan would only require one city but may not be effective now, it would place a city one NW of the wine, and would have to expand once to be effective
The situation as of now on the world map shows that Orleans is located on a thin ithsmus, by building two or three cities around Orleans our culture could block expansion of their settlers. Speed will be necessary if this plan is to work, we will need to turn out settlers rapidly because every city they found outside Orleans will make the formation of a buffer more difficult.
The benefits of a smaller France are obvious, they are an agressive civ and the smaller they are the few units they can field, also they will have less access to resources. Because we won't be competing for land with the French there will be more land to be had peacefully.
However there are also downsides, If France is boxed in their only option for expansion will be war, we'll have to remain wary of their military, also the line of cities that will be necessary will not be as coherent as we would likely create under normal circumstances. This will make us more vulnerable to attack and increase our maitence by distance from capital.
If we were to do this I would suggest our next city be founded in the gold cow location, this location will be necessary in a plan to block them in, and founding it first will provide us the opportunity to stop the plan if France expands quickly, begining with a city further to the west might get us stuck with a supposed buffer city surrounded by French territory.
If after the gold cow city is founded our next settler finds an opening around the propsed "coppertown" location that would be the obvious 2nd city site, then our third settler could found on the coast.
Spoiler :
Another plan would only require one city but may not be effective now, it would place a city one NW of the wine, and would have to expand once to be effective
