Where should I settle? Opinion needed

[w a i n y]

He has a capitol way up north, why he passed up the gems spot I have no idea. I would get a settler onto that spot pronto or reload back 8 turns (4 turn autosave here) and settle those gems first.

That will probably incite Pachacuti to DoW which would seem to play right into your Mongol horde plans.

As far as the south location. I would think to settle the coast so harbor can replace the massive roads you need to trade route there.

Yes, the coastal location is probably better, for this reason and also because it's closer to the things you want (and contains stone for an extra happiness point). You forgo 1 silver but whatever.
1 SE of gems is yet a better spot, but only because you need horses to conquer. Otherwise, the two spots are about equal. I can totally understand why you went to the far location (to avoid an Incan DOW) but it might have been more optimal to settle there, build a monument to grab the horses, and rushbuy a few archers if they DOW. You're not at risk of the Incans settling the southern, mountainous location, so you can take it at your leisure.
Alternatively, put 1 city in the forest next to the warrior, another 2 SE of gems. Gets you literally every single resource around, but the lower city is vulnerable to attack.

 

[w a i n y]

He's giving you good advice. If you are trying to move your settler so far out just to settle on the best site , then you are not playing effectively and probably not suited to play deity at all.

Hint : Your settler isn't a scout...make a real scout.

There are a wide range of potential play styles on deity, and settling there avoids an Incan DOW until his army can be consolidated. He can get by with 8 keshiks if he misses out on the gems location. Settler scouting is unorthodox and somewhat risky if barbs are on, but works in a pinch. Personal attacks are unnecessary.

 

[RedRover57]

Heh, I didn't even notice that you are playing Mongols. The gem site is a no-brainer since there are two 4-horse tiles! Settle one tile SE of the gems. Get a monument in the city quick or buy the horse tiles. Build/buy 6-7 chariot archers and a horseman. Conquer your neighbor. Upgrade to keshiks. Conquer the world. Settle the south site whenever - it's not even a priority.

 

[RedRover57]

Note: If you are worried about an early Incan DoW from settling the gems site I wouldn't be concerned as it is in a easily defensible site, with river in front and hills behind your city. One or 2 archers and warriors should be enough to defend any early rush even on Deity. Once you get the horses hooked up and a bunch of chariot archers you are golden.

 

[RedRover57]

Also - would you mind posting the starting save file? That looks like a fun map (is it continents?, fractal?, pangaea?). What DLC would be needed to play?

 

[joncnunn]

Best spot in the area I see is the coastal river spot marked.

Any non coastal spot in the area means the fish doesn't get worked by a city with a lighthouse, and probably no work boat for a long time either. Rivers better than non river and the spot marked takes in the stone.

Meanwhile, a future settler from the city could still take that 2nd silver that won't be worked by a city in that location.

Not sure why you sent your second settler down here instead of founding it near your capital though.

 

[w a i n y]

Heh, I didn't even notice that you are playing Mongols. The gem site is a no-brainer since there are two 4-horse tiles! Settle one tile SE of the gems. Get a monument in the city quick or buy the horse tiles. Build/buy 6-7 chariot archers and a horseman. Conquer your neighbor. Upgrade to keshiks. Conquer the world. Settle the south site whenever - it's not even a priority.

Is a chariot archer rush feasible, despite their high expense relative to strength? I guess that would change the equation in favour of the first location, since you can get your army up and running faster.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think that, at the very least, you could get up a bunch of chariot archers to harvest the bags of XP that Pachacuti will be very inclined to send over once the city is settled. No sense letting all that XP go to waste.

 

[w a i n y]

I think that, at the very least, you could get up a bunch of chariot archers to harvest the bags of XP that Pachacuti will be very inclined to send over once the city is settled. No sense letting all that XP go to waste.

True, though I'm wondering whether it might be better to settle way off in the corner and develop the empire before massively expanding the military.

 

[RedRover57]

As mongols? I wouldn't. I would want my chariot archers to start getting experience ASAP (barbs and defending from early DoW). Mongols are a warmongering civ, not a turtling civ. Heavily promoted keshiks are overpowered for a lot of turns. Conquering the world before your opponents hit infantry is the goal - even rifles fall to heavily promoted keshiks fairly easily. So you have about a 100 turn window of opportunity after upgrading to keshiks (maybe more).

Is this map pangaea or some sort of continents map? If you are alone on a continent with just the one opponent then that may affect your strategy. I would be less likely to rush with chariot archers and just wait for keshiks, to allow your opponent to build up some nice cities to take. But I would still settle that gem site ASAP, followed by the southern site (but the southern city probably after getting the NC).

 

[w a i n y]

As mongols? I wouldn't. I would want my chariot archers to start getting experience ASAP (barbs and defending from early DoW). Mongols are a warmongering civ, not a turtling civ. Heavily promoted keshiks are overpowered for a lot of turns. Conquering the world before your opponents hit infantry is the goal - even rifles fall to heavily promoted keshiks fairly easily. So you have about a 100 turn window of opportunity after upgrading to keshiks (maybe more).

Is this map pangaea or some sort of continents map? If you are alone on a continent with just the one opponent then that may affect your strategy. I would be less likely to rush with chariot archers and just wait for keshiks, to allow your opponent to build up some nice cities to take. But I would still settle that gem site ASAP, followed by the southern site (but the southern city probably after getting the NC).

Okay, but if you are going to turtle, then wouldn't it be better to stay at the lower city location only until after NC, to avoid an inopportune DoW? Also, keshiks are the one unit where promotions are much less of a factor, since you're getting double XP on them anyways. But I agree that probably a chariot archer rush, with the gems city, is better, if you can do it without too many casualties (they have 5 moves as mongols and can move after attack, right?).

 

[Vo01985]

They still have 4 moves, and can not move after attack. Chariot Archers are teh suck, unless you have quite a few of them in open terrain.

 

[w a i n y]

They still have 4 moves, and can not move after attack. Chariot Archers are teh suck, unless you have quite a few of them in open terrain.

Lol, seriously? Then they're basically useless for attack, even as Mongolia. You could settle the gems and defend with them if necessary, or equally you could settle the far city. I don't see any significant difference between the two sites, as I've mentioned.

 

[seaofsorrow]

I did not scout with my settler, my scout was killed by the Incans. I chose to settle there because the Incans declared war on me since the very beggining. Since my assumption was that me and him were the only ones in the continent, i would not be able to trade my luxuries anytime soon, therefore i would not be able to properly defend a city from his attacks. That locations seemed isolated enough for me and it also had horses, also a very good production potential.

The fact that it is only me and him on the continent really sucks tho, my plan was to get keshiks and kill everybody. What are the odds that out of 7 Civs you end up in a continent with just one neighbor?

 

[w a i n y]

I did not scout with my settler, my scout was killed by the Incans. I chose to settle there because the Incans declared war on me since the very beggining. Since my assumption was that me and him were the only ones in the continent, i would not be able to trade my luxuries anytime soon, therefore i would not be able to properly defend a city from his attacks. That locations seemed isolated enough for me and it also had horses, also a very good production potential.

The fact that it is only me and him on the continent really sucks tho, my plan was to get keshiks and kill everybody. What are the odds that out of 7 Civs you end up in a continent with just one neighbor?

I think this vindicates the choice of city location. Nobody that was attacking seaofsorrow for it seemed to consider the difficulty of defending the upper location. Anyway, you can still do okay with only 1 neighbo(u)r: just get good at your amphibious keshik assaults

 

[Roxlimn]

seaofsorrow:

I play Continents constantly. That happens fairly often enough that you really need a plan of action for that possibility. Also, you need to plan for when every City State in sight is Militaristic. Ick.

wainy:

I've used Chariot Archers. They're basically slightly-better Archers with the situational movement advantage. They're mainly useful for defending separate sites of attack with just the one unit, or the one group of units. Occasionally, looping around zones of control for positioning purposes on flat terrain is advantageous, but not that often. They're especially useful if you haven't got the road network up and running quite yet and have spread cities to defend.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

Incidently I've played 3 whole games today in the time it's taken to decide where to place this city.

I'm just joking so no worries

 

[w a i n y]

I've used Chariot Archers. They're basically slightly-better Archers with the situational movement advantage. They're mainly useful for defending separate sites of attack with just the one unit, or the one group of units. Occasionally, looping around zones of control for positioning purposes on flat terrain is advantageous, but not that often. They're especially useful if you haven't got the road network up and running quite yet and have spread cities to defend.

Except I think they cost 70 instead of 40, meaning they're a fair bit worse bang for your buck.

 

[Roxlimn]

Except I think they cost 70 instead of 40, meaning they're a fair bit worse bang for your buck.

They're special use units. It depends on the kind of bang you're looking for. If you just want more brute firepower, sure. If you're covering two locations with two Archers, one CA might be better. The XP is concentrated, and you pay less in maintenance. Without flatlands to exploit, never worth building.

A pair of CAs can do a fair bit of movement shenanigans to maximize the impact of Warrior screens and city bombardment. Archers are more straightforward, more brute force.

The final point is that CAs can reinforce Warriors on Barb hunting duty outside your borders and still come back for quick defense.

I won't say they're better units, period, but they're not Lancers.

 

[chgrogers]

They're special use units. It depends on the kind of bang you're looking for. If you just want more brute firepower, sure. If you're covering two locations with two Archers, one CA might be better. The XP is concentrated, and you pay less in maintenance. Without flatlands to exploit, never worth building.

A pair of CAs can do a fair bit of movement shenanigans to maximize the impact of Warrior screens and city bombardment. Archers are more straightforward, more brute force.

The final point is that CAs can reinforce Warriors on Barb hunting duty outside your borders and still come back for quick defense.

I won't say they're better units, period, but they're not Lancers.

Hey I like lancers. Since I go down the Honour tree quite a bit I like to use them for Garrison duty when scouts are obsolete and they make some nice upgrades to Helicopters. but that is off topic.

So sea now that we have discussed this all day. What did you finally do and how are the Inca's faring?