Where to settle next?

[GenMarshall]

I have not noticed a discussion being posted in regards to filling in the void where we razed an Indian city. I beleve we should settle in that location ASAP before the Indians reclame that location.

Please discuss uppon this issue.
Thanks,
CivGeneral

 

[RegentMan]

What city should be used to produce the settler?

 

[snipelfritz]

Here's the situation. Our war with India has opened a lot of land to settle namely around an old city site. Below is a (big ol')map. Where would you like to settle?

 

[RegentMan]

This would be my layout plan:

 

[greekguy]

RegentMan's plan looks good to me. it fills in all the spots and gets us another supply of silks.

 

[Ashburnham]

I'm inclinded to agree with Regentman as well. But, remember that we will most likely be going to war with the Dutch in the near future. The resulting border shifts could disrupt the current settler plans. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[snipelfritz]

I like Regentmans plans.

Which site would we want to settle first? I propose the center one, because it blocks the Indians from the south eastern site.

Ash, we need to settle quickly, before the Dutch or Indians can. These are the best spots we have now. If something changes, we will stop and reasess the situation.

 

[Octavian X]

I'd be inclined to wait to settle that area for now. If we did plant cities in that area, we'd have to turn around soon and worry about defending them from the Dutch.

 

[snipelfritz]

Update
Donsignia has a settler in queue. What do we plan to do with it? Do we settle, or save it for later?

 

[Furiey]

Not only do we have a settler in the queue, but there is one built and it's currently East of Bentley heading West....

The Dutch have also built a city on the Silks.

 

[snipelfritz]

I propose we settle either on the horses or one tile SE of the horses. Myself, being more inclined towards the former.

 

[Ashburnham]

I would prefer settling SE of the Horses. It's the same spot that was proposed at the beginning of this thread, and all the reasons for it still apply. However, this most recent development (Breda) suggests that expansion plans will have to be curtailed for the moment, until we can successfully push back the Dutch.

 

[Nobody]

i agree with the idea of the 3 citys in indian land.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

3 cities in India is fine by me... provided they have CULTURE

 

[DaveShack]

I support going ahead to settle on the spot SE of the horses.

There is another settler either already produced or next in queue, let's decide on another place while we're at it.

 

[RegentMan]

I'd go for one tile southeast of the horses too.

 

[Furiey]

One possiblility for the Settler about to be built is near the iron. The original site (iron wheat) is now within the Dutch Culture (I think). However, settling W of the iron, although not on the river, would claim the iron, and 1 wheat from Rotterdam. But more importantly, now that Rotterdam has expanded, would mean our troops would only have to cross 1 tile of enemy territory ie: move in one turn and attack the next. We would have to do some roading to connect the new city and then protect it, but it could then be used as a staging post for the Rotterdam attack.

 

[zyxy]

I like the three spots proposed by RegentMan, the southernmost of which is still available. The second settler could go to the IronWheat area -- NW of the iron looks good -- after we declare on the dutch (then we can settle inside their borders).

 

[DaveShack]

I like the three spots proposed by RegentMan, the southernmost of which is still available. The second settler could go to the IronWheat area -- NW of the iron looks good -- after we declare on the dutch (then we can settle inside their borders).

Yes, we may want to adjust their spacing a bit to get our seemingly preferred 13 tiles per city. I don't know if we would want to use two defenders on a brand new city inside the battle zone.

 

[RegentMan]

Should we raze all Dutch cities and build settlers to fit our own city-placement style?