Team Bede Gets to Know Each Other

Notes: We're America. Expansionist and Industrial. Random opponents, and raging barbs. We have to decide on some goals here, but I should be able to start out without too much discussion.

Bede_4000BC_start.jpg


[0] 4000BC
Hmmm. Looks like fun. mountains to the south. Desert to the north and west. Grass to the east. We are pretty much in the middle of the map. At lease we have a river. Flood plains are nice for growth, but disease and no production make for a bit of a rough start. In all likely hood I'm moving the settler east onto the grass, but I'll start by moving our scout onto the mountain to our SE.
Wow! Much better. Bgs, a wheated flood plain and gems to our east (in some jungle though.
Moving the settler east onto the grass. Moving the worker NE to work a bonus grass in two. I'll take the extra move to work the more useful tile at this point.

[1] 3950BC
We settle washington, home of our corrupt government. We have 4 bonus grass in range, 6 upon expansion, plus hills, flood plains, gems and wheat. Not to shabby. We are one tile from the coast, but figured settling on the river would be best at this point. I start on a scout build. Our scout moves south and spots some huts.

It usually makes sense to make the run a philosophy, so I'll start on alphabet. We're playing Monarchy, so I doubt we'll fail in this effort. At 90% we'll learn our abc's in 28 turns.

[2] 3900BC
Worker mines grass, scout pops hut after an exploratory step east, spotting nanners. A Navajo tribes gives us some fine maps showing junge to our SE and SW, march to our far south and a patch of jungle dyes.

[3] 3850BC
Scout scouting south and east.

[4] 3800BC
Scout onto a jungle mountain spots wheated grass across the eastern jungle and a possible south and eastern coast. We may have a lot of jungle to our east, but there is a lot of banana in it at least.

[5] 3750BC
Scout farther east to explore the ends of the jungle land.

IBT
Washington pops the scout. I start on a warrior for a bit of MP and as a little deterrent.

[6] 3700BC
Our new scout heads north onto a mountain and we see the land to the north is about 4 tiles wide for a bit. Deserts, hills, plains, grass to the north. Our worker begins a roading project. Our newly mined grass cuts the warrior build by one.
Our easter scout wanders the eastern shore just north of Cape May (hey, I'm from Jersey, afterall.)

[7] 3650BC
Northern scout - more hills, mountains, etc.
Eastern scout in a wide patch of grass

[8] 3600BC
Eastern grass patch extends and expands more than expected. We have more hills. Our worker moves to irrigate the wheat.
Our northbound scout steps on a mountain and spots Spain. Okay, maybe not Spain, but at least a Spanish warrior. No mention its pretty apparent the nearby "shore" close to Washington is more like a good sized lake.

I trade our techs (pottery and masonry) for CB and Alphabet and 10 gold. We start on writing due in 36 at 90%.

[9] 3550BC
Our northern scout starts west since the eastern scout will likely wrap around the lake. We spot a hut.

IBT
Our warrior comes in and I start on a granary.

[10] 3500BC
I'll let the warrior wander a little, but not too far.
The hut scores a settler! Woohoo. Another hut is spotted to the east.

Usually in these SG's the first person plays 20. I'm fine with that, but since we popped this early settler, I'll stop mid-turn to let us decide what to do with him. Our choices are to either (1) burn turns sending him closer to Washington, (2) settle where he is which would be on the coast, but with minimal growth potential, (3) one south onto the hills which would have better growth and is on the river, but its off the coast. What does anyone think?

I attach our latest map with our settler to the NW. I'll attach the save to. It probably makes the more sense for someone else to play the next turn. With only a couple weeks until the SGOTM starts, we may as well have everyone play a couple. Sorry its saved mid-turn, but I didn't want to move the settler without some sort of consensus.
 

Attachments

  • Bede_3500BC_settler.jpg
    Bede_3500BC_settler.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 108
That's where I'm leaning myself, soul_warrior. It is on the river. Its a bit closer to home and with another city to the east should help block us from Spain in the north. I figure we can get a coastal city in due time to help explore. Plus there is not another overwhelmingly great site where I feel its worth settler wandering for a while, especially without protection from the barbs in this board.

What's your take, azzaman?
 
lurker's comment:
Wow look at all them banananananaas and wheats due SE of WDC... This is a much better start than we had in TGOTM.... *GRMBL*

I too would take the settler 1 S, Get floodplains and mountains.... Good spot!
 
The consensus appears to be 1S. The next settler can fill the cultural gap I think.
 
Oops, sorry. Didnt mean to make you go through all the trouble.

I see how it works now.

~Ghostwind
 
Personally, I would move the settler 2 SE. It would be as close to the capitol as it can be without sharing tiles. Even though you have to build an aqueduct, it would be our major powerhouse city later in game.

It would also save us from having 2 pretty useless sea tiles since we cant build a harbor. I do wish I knew what that was SW of the mountains though. Marsh?

~Ghostwind
 
My guess for the other side of the mountains is coast. If your concern is sharing tiles with the capital, I wouldn't want to move 2 SE. The main reason being it would limit you to only that city smack in the middle of that land mass, assuming you want future cities to be OCP as well. Moving south would postion us better to seal the land mass with another city possibly on the desert north of Washington. And its on the river so we'll get some extra commerce. Plus it will fit an OCP scheme better with another city to the east, if you are into that sort of thing.

My take is to settle a decent spot a soon as possible that will be reasonably productive early. I'd rather have a quick city now to provide production in the formative years than to wait a long time to have a potentially strong city far later in the game. All things considered, though, neither spot is really going to wow. But I'll take warrior production while the capital spits out settler.
 
Ghostwind said:
Oops, sorry. Didnt mean to make you go through all the trouble.

I see how it works now.

~Ghostwind
@GW, no trouble to whip a new start. We are off and running so no problemo.


SpikeIt said:
My guess for the other side of the mountains is coast. If your concern is sharing tiles with the capital, I wouldn't want to move 2 SE. The main reason being it would limit you to only that city smack in the middle of that land mass, assuming you want future cities to be OCP as well. Moving south would postion us better to seal the land mass with another city possibly on the desert north of Washington. And its on the river so we'll get some extra commerce. Plus it will fit an OCP scheme better with another city to the east, if you are into that sort of thing.

My take is to settle a decent spot a soon as possible that will be reasonably productive early. I'd rather have a quick city now to provide production in the formative years than to wait a long time to have a potentially strong city far later in the game. All things considered, though, neither spot is really going to wow. But I'll take warrior production while the capital spits out settler.

I'll pull up the save in a bit and try to get a handle on the options. But in general I'm with Spike.

On urban planning....no more than CxxxC for city placement barring accidents like barbarian settlers. If you have to use culture to close the borders the towns are too far apart. There are a while host of reasons behind that. Primarily you don't need more than 12 fields per city for a really, really long time, like maybe never. Using OCP (zero overlap) wastes too much useable ground for too long.
 
Moving 1S will work just fine

TBGTKEA2.jpg
 
Hmm, ok. I am not really a numbers cruncher. I play mostly by intuition where those sort of things are concerned. That could be one reason I have never had much success beyond monarch.

I usually place my first four cities (after the capitol) to maximize later development and then start overlapping the layer after that. I can see your point about another city to the N of Washington, however. This will be a learning experience.

One south seems fine to me.

~Ghostwind
 
3450- New York is built 1S from where the settler was popped. Other scout pops hut for Bronze Working
3400- Worker roads flood plain with wheat. Warrior spots another hut
3350- Wines discovered on other side of lake. Spanish territory is found.
3300- Workers starts roading towards New York. Warrior pops a hut for 25 gold.
IBT- Spanish settler comes out from Madrid.
3250- Warrior starts going back to Washington. Spanish territory can only expand to the south and the east.
IBT- Disease strikes Washington
3200- Scouts start getting close, 1 goes south.
IBT- Washington is hit by disease again
3150- Spot a spanish settler next to the wines
IBT- Settler moves 1 west onto coastal wine
3100- Worker is 2 turns away from connecting NY and Washington
IBT- Spain builds Barcelona
3050- Furs spotted on a small penisular up north
3000- Worker moves back to improve Washington. New York builds a worker in 1 turn. The Northern coastline has been mapped.
 

Attachments

  • Lincoln of the Americans, 3000 BC.jpg
    Lincoln of the Americans, 3000 BC.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 84
I've got a feeling, it's us and Spain on a good size island. I dont know if it's a good spot or not for a city, but SE of Washington, down on that tiny peninsula of land are two grasslands with wheat, but it'd take some jungle clearing on a few spots. Still, might be sight to think about.

Now, when I play alone, I usually try to get a second worker out as soon as possible, is that a course we should take, or not?

Looking good so far, I think. :goodjob:
 
lurker's comment: (Nearly) No such thing as to many workers...

In particular if those workers are slaves.... They are slower, but free!

Slaves <=> Free? :crazyeye: :lol:

Rexing N and E seems to be the order of the day.... then leaving S for a little later...
 
Looks to me like an early war to get rid of spain.

~Ghostwind
 
Ghostwind said:
Looks to me like an early war to get rid of spain.
lurker's comment: Try not to go to was to soon. Waring hurts your expansion. Plenty of space to expand to. Go 1 or 2 towns more N of WDC.
Then "claim your core" (directly around WDC, including S & W.
Then go all the way to the "east coast" effectively blocking in spain.
Once up to the FP-trigger, hopefully having horses, go after spain...

Or that is what I would (try to) do....
 
Ghostwind - up now
residuetiger - on deck
Bede
SpikeIt
azzaman333

Looks like good progress. Disease at Washington a nuisance but will get better soon.

Keep expanding, no warfare until there is no more land left to occupy then choose your target. namliaM hsa a pretty good schedule in mind.
 
Ok umm, I play the next 10 turns with no input from other team members? Aside, of course, for the mandate to expand for the time being?

My goal would be to settle as much land north and east of our capitol as possible, even though those bananas look mighty juicy.

I just want to be clear because I screwed up once already.

~Ghostwind

P.S Yeah, I would not go to war right away. But it looks inevitable
 
Back
Top Bottom