Turn 3200 - New city

[Serutan]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough


This is also my thought right now.

Unless we can make the city work into a good city scheme, I would like to see it disbanded and moved where we want. It will still be a 'free' city, just where we actually want it.

And it would still generate bonus science while the settler
was a building. I agree that disbanding and moving
is the correct thing. I also vote for exploring the immediate
area of Nineveh with the Legion.

As to city naming:
1) I thought there was already a list for
this that anarchywrksbest created?

2) If we decide to disband, do we even need to bother
with a new name?

 

[Dell19]

Originally posted by duke o' york



Great idea! I always like to do this for my cities and since if we support the legion from [unnamed city] then it won't have any production, I say to keep the legion supported by RC and use it to look around the new city but not leave it undefended until it can build its own troops.

I did suggest this first, btw

Ainwood's city plan isn't that bad and should use most of the specials without disbanding the new city. In Ainwood's plan he didn't include any overlaps, unlike in the other city plans and if they were included then the city plan might be better.

 

[Pongui]

This is just a strategy, which chance will likely bar:

The chariot is best suited to charging off in search of other civs, maybe towards the equator. We can do the thorough exploration, near Regia Civitas for example, with single-move units.

 

[GaryNemo]

Sean suggests our Chariot charge off in search... I agree. Maybe it will find us a Settler from None! Unfortunately, the Chariot is in a better position to scan the land North of our capital, which I view as a vital task.

So it's not optimal, but I suggest at first we let the Legion walk around the new city, and the Chariot head SE. We have another Legion, currently SW of this new city. It can walk NW. And Sean, maybe the Chariot will end charging off to the great unexplored NE.

Finally, I think we should keep the Legion supported by RC. That sounds like I want to disband our new city, but I do not. Let's make a city plan which includes the South River Mouth for a bridge onto the River, which optimizes for the Gems city, and otherwise provides for some overlap and retaining our new city.

 

[Zwelgje]

I think the domestic advisor should post a poll on disbanding Nineveh, discussion is going on in several threads now and it would be best to make a poll so that we can have a clear decision on what has to happen.

As president to be (nobody else obviously wants to be pres...) I'd like to know how I can disband a city. I've read that I should build a settler but when the settler is ready the city will have grown to size 2 right? The empire currently has 7 gold so there is no chance we can buy the settler anytime soon.

 

[GaryNemo]

Well, which Domestic Advisor? Mordheim, I can post a poll tomorrow, or 9/04?, or you can post one today. Whatever.

And Addict (or Civ1, which Nickname do you prefer), I agree it sounds tough to get it done right now. Maybe just keep building Settlers until we can figire it out. If the poll is fatal, I hope not.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
As president to be (nobody else obviously wants to be pres...) I'd like to know how I can disband a city. I've read that I should build a settler but when the settler is ready the city will have grown to size 2 right? The empire currently has 7 gold so there is no chance we can buy the settler anytime soon.

Well, if it is decided to disband the city, you would change the cities workers to something like the desert or the plains on the river. That will gives us production but not a large surplus of food, that way we can build the settler without the city ever getting to size two.

 

[Zwelgje]

OK, I understand now, thanks Duke.
To the current domestic advisor: post a poll now, if the result gets in before 9/04 I can start playing right away (if nobody else pops up who wants to be president )

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

An even better thing would be to put the worker on the Ocean square until the food box is full, then switch it to the Desert sqaure.

The ocean would give us 1 extra gold per turn because of the extra trade. All the other terrain only gives one trade, which is taken by corruption. The desert provides no food, so it would make the city sit with no growth until the settler is finished.

 

[Octavian X]

I'm still in favor of keeping the city, then just working it into the city plan. I'm almost sure there's a whole lot of land north a RC, and it's sea.

 

[Dell19]

Originally posted by Octavian X
I'm still in favor of keeping the city, then just working it into the city plan.

So am I

Anyway since no one else has run for president then someone needs to be appointed as deputy incase Civ 1 cannot play at some point. I will volunteer for this unless someone else wants to be deputy.

 

[Zwelgje]

I support Dell as deputy as he knows the game thoroughly, still being the president and soon the former president.

 

[GaryNemo]

Yes, Yes, Dell19 for Deputy President. Let's keep an experienced man. And for Deputy Domestic Advisor, let's keep Mordhiem. It seems like the Deputy positions should fall to these two citizens by default. And let's keep the city, too.

 

[GaryNemo]

I've been thinking about this, as have we all, and here are some ideas.



We have 3 cities, shown as white Civ grid.
Then Gems and SE 2Whales, seem to have consensus.

I also show RM River Mouth, and the new RB River Bend ideas.

Finally, N1 N2 and N3 cities, and a few roads. The N1 city and roads will provide productive power to get other things done: units, settlers, roads, and a defense network. What if we need another happiness guard? Or if we are attacked by Barbs?

Building order: Gems, N1, N2, perhaps River Mouth. N3 is strangled in The Forest, so it can wait. In case anyone doesn't know, I personally prefer building N1 before Gems.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

If Gem City is going to be considered for any possible choice of our SSC, it needs to be built ASAP.

I personally don't like cities to choke each other. I also don't like to leave big gaps of unused land between them either. A little overlap (or no overlap) has always been my preference.

 

[Zwelgje]

I prefer to build the "real" cities asap and the filler-cities can wait until we've got a few spare settlers. I don't want the filler cities to interfere with the growth of the important cities!

 

[GaryNemo]

The filler cities will never affect the growth of the primary cities -- we won't allow them to use the other cities' land. They will simply utilize otherwise dead land. Order of building the cities does matter.

If we build Gems first, and do not immediately build a Settler with it, fine. If we found a primary city, then build a Settler with it, we would have been better off building N1 first. We would have saved the walking time -- N1 would have already begun to produce Science, the subsequent Settler will be available sooner, and it could also build a central Road on its way to its founding site.

 

[duke o' york]

This may be a little bit too much attention to detail really, but when TF produces the settler then can it go west first to uncover the dark square in TF's radius. As a single move unit, the settler won't need to extend the amount of time it will take to reach Gems City and I'd prefer all the useable tiles to be uncovered where possible.
Other than that, Dell19 for VP!
I like Gary's collection of filler cities so far but maintain that we should build the major cities first and then fill up afterwards.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by duke o' york
This may be a little bit too much attention to detail really, but when TF produces the settler then can it go west first to uncover the dark square in TF's radius. As a single move unit, the settler won't need to extend the amount of time it will take to reach Gems City and I'd prefer all the useable tiles to be uncovered where possible.
Other than that, Dell19 for VP!
I like Gary's collection of filler cities so far but maintain that we should build the major cities first and then fill up afterwards.

Sounds good. But then what do we do with the archer? Not sure how many turns we are away from barbs, but it may be a good idea to move the archer back towards TF anyway?

 

[Dell19]

I'm pretty sure thats what Civ 1 wanted the archer to do as he put it in his exploration thread.