Term III Goals

1889

Mayor of H-Marker Lake
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
3,904
Location
Devil's Punchbowl
I started this thread so I can present my goals for term III. Please offer your suggestions about how this plan can be improved upon or where it needs to be changed.

Basically I’d like to see us expand a great deal.
  • I’d like our current worker build to be followed by an axe to secure our next city location from barbs. Turn 5
  • A light house will give us 2 more food to speed worker/settler production Turn 8
  • A settler after that to settle site 2. Turn 14
  • A worker next while the axe moves to secure site 1. Turn 18
  • Settler again. Turn 24
  • Finally settler for site 3, no defense is needed to secure this site because barbs can’t spawn since it is not in the fog. Turn 29

Maintenance costs are: site 1 = 2gpt, site 2 = 1gpt and site 3 = 3gpt. This can be handled mostly by internal trade if we connect our cities by road. Then we only need a few cottages to break even.

Site 2 is different than what was originally suggest but the original site would have such low production that it would never be useful for anything except worker and settler production. High food cities can make excellent great person pumps but buildings would be need to be built to allow specialists and we’d even have a hard time just producing the two work boats needed to work those coastal resources.

This plan will leave us nearly defenseless, but I think it is a reasonable short term risk. The capitol can easily rush a barracks and quickly build axemen after turn 29.
 
I disagree on site 2, it should be on the other patch of forest south east of where it is now. Where it is now means it misses the clams and fishes which would be the whole point of building it there.

Current build queue imo should be another worker after this one as we need the 2nd city to begin having a road built towards the new city and help clearing the jungle, following that an axe so we can send the warrior down to secure the new city, leaving the axe in the capital and then a settler for the new city.

The lighthouse is not a neccesity right now as we dont want the city to be growing for the time being and wont have a huge impact on settler/worker production for the time being.

Also the complete disregard for military in them opening moves isnt something that i want for the team, its a needless risk seeing as we have very good production and therefore taking the time out to build some troops and secure our borders is not something we should consider pointless.

I appreciate that some of the sites will not need immediate military protection however there are probably going to be people on the other teams who can read the demographics screens just as well as we can and so they will notice we have 5 cities with only 2 axes and a warrior defending all of them.
 
Great list! Only a few points I disagree on:
  • I’d like our current worker build to be followed by an axe to secure our next city location from barbs. Turn 5
    [*]A light house will give us 2 more food to speed worker/settler production Turn 8
  • A settler after that to settle site 2. Turn 14
  • A worker next while the axe moves to secure site 1. Turn 18
  • Settler again. Turn 24
    [*]Finally settler for site 3, no defense is needed to secure this site because barbs can’t spawn since it is not in the fog. Turn 29
I, like BCLG100, feel like we need more defense, namely axes. The :hammers: used to build the lighthouse could easily be used to produce the settlers and workers.

I can see the rationale behind moving site two. If we could explore down south a little more, perhaps an alternate site utilizing the crabs and fish could be established, leaving site two to be founded on your alternate site.
 
First off, the lighthouse is half price for organized civs. So it only costs us 30 hammers but gives us 2 foods per turn. That only takes 3 turns to build but quickly pays for itself by saving us time on settler and worker production as well as pop growth.

Next about city defenders: it is a small point, but we can save some time by letting cities build their own rather than make them all in the capitol.

The placement of site 2 is a much more complicated question though, so I set up a world builder test that you can try for yourself. I started both cities with a worker and added Mysticism, Pottery and Writing. After running this test I found the northern location to be slightly better despite its apparent lack of resources. This is because the southern location requires an obelisk and two workboats while the northern site could use the hills to build a granary and essentially double food production. In addition the southern site is continually rushing population to complete its builds which not only costs it the food that was stored to grow the population but also costs what those citizens would have produced in food hammers and gold. Also the unhappiness from rushing often forces other citizens to stop working.

The southern location may have some utility as a great person pump but keep in mind the special buildings (and technology) required to use specialists and after all that great people are still very slow in coming.
 
Basically we need to get on deciding what teams we want to go trought with us. We need to be careful in doing this because we might get some teams jealous and thus threaten our existence. So what exactly are we looking for in our alliance members?
 
That seems kind of off topic, was that meant for the God thread?
 
No, he was probably saying that during the term we want to get our alliance members sorted out. If we leave it for too long it will greatly threaten our chances of making an alliance with anyone.
 
The 4 teams we have met so far don’t seam to be very eager for alliances so I don’t think we need to be in such a rush, especially after the BAT fiasco. Making a poor ally choice now is far worse than not making one at all.

Lets us assume the worst possible situation that everyone else teams up without us and it is 3 vs. 3 vs. 1. That means that we hold the balance of power, as the tie breaker in any war we may be able to extract valuable concessions from both sides because as soon as one alliance declares war on anyone it should quickly become a 4 vs. 3 game in our favor every time. At any time after the first civ is destroyed we can re-negotiate our position with the two surviving members of that alliance who are now eager for our friendship.

Lets not get hung-up on the fact that not all the teams need to be defeated this time. It really isn't different than any other Civ game you have played.
 
I disagree still of placement 2, for instance i disagree that it should be placement 2, it was in theory planned to be the next city built.

The thing about the city was that it was planned and looks very good to be a scpecialist farm, whichever city is there it isnt going to be a production powerhouse and thus with the way the land looks to be it looks like the best place for a GP city.

Its also easy to defend and thus we can just shove a warrior from the capital in there.

I agree that cities can be building their own units however that doesnt excape the point that they will take awhile to build whatever they are trying to build which still leaves us defenceless.

If we set the next city as that one we can set a library as first build and chop them trees to give it a boost and force two scientists as by the time the library is built the capital will have been able to produce a couple of workboats and thus will have a great scientist in about 17 turns and an early acadamy in the capital :)

This is all under the condition that we have writing by the time the city is built, i think writing should be the next tech after pottery regardless, we've waited too long on BAT and christ knows what they're upto.
 
The order the cities is founded is no big deal to me, but I strongly suggest you try the scenario I made before you start imagining how useful that city will be as a great person factory.

We would need Mysticism as our next tech so that city can build an Obelisk first and after the capitol builds a defender and two work boats to support that anemic city we still need to rush the library then wait for the unhappiness to go away so we can run two specialists without bringing the city to a halt (remember only 3 tiles are worth working there). The big payoff for all that bother is a great scientist 17 turns later, then another 33 turns after that and a third in 50 more turns.

Wouldn't it be much easier to just run those specialists in our capitol or any other city with 4 extra food?
 
However that is of some benefit whereas the benefit of having that city in the other place is of no benefit at all.

We dont need to build an obelisk first, if we set the library as first build and chop a forest thats 30 turns in the bag already, now all we need is the city to grow a pop and produce 30 tiles and we can rush it.

So if we go like this.

build city, work forest for 15 turns, that is 30 food 15 hammers (from forest alone) coupled with the base working from the city itself we should in theory have enough to then chop the forest and pop rush the city in the following few turns.

A city with 4 extra food isnt just lying about either :)-this one will have 3 food resources and for me thats very good :)
 
A GP farm is better than a below-average city with no specific purpose other than do a little of this, a little of that, but not really have much impact on anything.
 
I hope no one minds that I pop in. Though I am not caught up since I went on a long hiatus :blush:. I would recommend settling on site 2 due enpart it would enable us access to the rice patties which would be essential for the health of our Empire coupled with granaries and other food related building that we would build in the future.
 
Sites 1 and 3 are a bit close to the capital I think. Can we settle further up north maybe? And it would be nice to see where the horses are.

Site 2 is ok, but not urgent IMO. Do we need health resources already?
 
Site 2 is ok, but not urgent IMO. Do we need health resources already?
Its best to nip the problem at the bud before it becomes such a problem in the future. I have experianced this when I had my capital and any of my other cities growing at a rapid rate in which they grow past their health cap in which forces me to seek out and conenct health resources.
 
@ZX

Its not urgent, however if you look at it like this, if we grow it-build a library and force a couple of scientists in it, we'll have a GS about16/17 turns after the lib has been built.

This GS we could use to lightbulb a tech.
 
This looks like a good area to settle:

Floodplains, seafood, gold, and the only source of iron as far as we know. We are probably the only civ that can see iron right now - let's leverage that advantage!
Once we settle red dot the area is practically unreachable to BAT or anyone else, except by boat or by an enormous detour, and we can settle the other cities at leisure.
The only problem is that this is far from our capital. Defense will be tricky for a while, and we may need courts and cottages to pay for it. But it is definitely worth it.
 
I would have to go with the red sector. It has both Gold and Iron.

We must move quickly and claim it before anyone else does.
 
Top Bottom