Discussion in 'Civ2 - Game of Democracy II' started by Zwelgje, Nov 25, 2002.
And all I want is 20 settlers...
I just couldn't resist to think out a new city-plan. Sorry guys!
I like it. Glad you included my sneaky Indian town!!!
I like it too
Two things I don't like though, is that there are three planned cities on wheat island. It's okay to have a square with a white border now and then, but I don't enjoy having a city inside another city's territory. And the yellow spot on one of our SSC's greatest trade contributing square Other than that I like it
This city plan suggests (again) to disband Khorsabad (name change either way?!). If this is what we intend to do, we'd better decide quickly, since the city square produces 3 food as Roskilde did. It will take a bit of good management to accomplish, but that may be as simple as all serfs to forest (would give 1 less beaker per turn).
Beautiful, and much needed. Thanx, Civ1.
Priority: F4, 3NW of REGIA CIVITAS, long overdue. Timely now due to appearance of Pheasant Woods, F4 serf works there.
Priority: V2, Pure Green Whale and Peat near Uppsala Barracks
Priority: MD 3NE in Boreum, then Wheat South (Dell19's "D"),
then Wheat North, and perhaps finally Wheat East.
Chryshe Plains Filler should be W of Dellham Hill, right?
In India, LC 3SW 2W is an improved position. 3SW, not 2SW.
Khorsabad: this is the plan we have needed!
New Island SW of Elysium: not sure. Why not N Tip, SW Tip, and SE Tip?
We haven't founded all three yet!
Dell has a poll running on this issue, the outcome until now is build the north and south city and not the east.
It's not a city dot, it's a dot from the gems themselves!!! Maybe I should have taken another color to indicate the cities then.
I'll try to post a decent poll on the issue.
Well spotted! I think it's a better position: no overlap with other (Indian) cities and more potential land tiles to work on if I'm correct.
That's a possibility but I don't see the point to be honoust. There's only one special in sight around the island and this spot is really nice: a big city can grow here generating lots of trade and supporting many citizens. It's a risky location though, if the Indians land and attack we may not be able to save our citizens. I'd rather lose one city than three.
But having said this, I don't object settling the island with three cities (but people are already complaining about overlap Gary, you're really pushing the border here!)
That explains the title of this thread, eh?
All of the squares marked "S" have a serf.
The rest is barren and useless in 600AD.
This picture shows we are providing highly productive road squares for our serfs. There is only one area where utilization approaches 50% - Central Aonia. Aonia has our only 2 Filler cities. It's time to stop misusing the word Filler. Bedfont Lakes is not a Filler, it has 19 productive squares. MD 3NE is not a Filler, it has 12 squares. Monks Towne, a Settler Powerhouse even without Wheat, has 14 personal squares. LN, GG and F4 will not impinge even one iota on RC TFalls Elysium CJ nor Neuma.
The balance of this map is operating at under 25% utilization. Our Caravans have so far to travel, it is difficult to estimate ontime delivery. Hence, we may loose Marco Polo.
I have never seen the AI build cities like we have in Aonia. That is expected, of course, because the AI does not have a strategy. The AI separates its cities. Uppsala is Viking City#3, and look how far it is from Trondheim and Kaupang.
When I contemplate this thread title, I imagine some Citizens might think of me, of "Nemo's Fillers". But what if it means this: without enough city density, NUF can't get what it wants?
To me, the term 'filler' means any city that is built with the purpose of using land that is otherwsie unused, but will not have enough land to grow to a 'full' city (I think of a full city as one that has at least 16 or more squares to use for itself) once the cities around it also grows.
Having cities with more than 4-6 overlapping squares are also generally considered 'fillers'.
BTW, I don't think Bedfont Lakes was ever meant as a 'filler'.
It is definately not a personal issue, but a game concept issue. People are use to playing a certain way and things different from that may take awhile to be accepted, if at all.
If we build cities in all the 'barren+useless" squares we will never have cities above size 8.
Furthermore, we will get to the point of 'too many cities' too early.
It woulkd also be either a) a waste of settlers, b) a massive drain on growth of cities as population is used to build more and more settlers.
When I have too many cities to control happiness I'd switch to republic
I agree that at the moment we aren't using the land we've got as efficiently as we could with more cities. However the city lay-out as we planned it was never meant to do that in the beginning of the game. From the start it was obvious that only in the late game we would be using all squares. I think we chose for the science gameplay and thus choosing for huge cities (eventually). Especially the cities in Aonia need the space they've got to support a large population that will generate huge amounts of science beakers.
Further on I think that when we've got republic the cities will grow rather quickly and will use all the good squares soon.
Another issue: we should build settlers for terrain improvement to let the cities grow!
My favorite way to use more land squares is to increase population with WLTCD.
Separate names with a comma.