New City Sites as of 1260AD

[CannonFodder]

As of now, we have a number of city sites that are unused. Some of them overlap. Some are a long way away from our capital. In addition, our resources for constructing new sites are somewhat thin. However, for future reference I am putting this poll up to show our prospects for new cities, and to decide where we should go first.

Note: Some of these sites are essentially rehashes from steelhc's last city site thread, but some of those have been colonized.

Poll is open for 5 days.

[CannonFodder]

These are the first two cities. The one on the same island as our other cities will overlap with Umbra. 1 is at (95,33) and 2 is at (88,22).

[CannonFodder]

Here's city site 3, around (36,50).

[CannonFodder]

Here's 4 and 5, at (85,61) and (87,65), respectively. 5 will overlap slightly with Light, and 4 and 5 will vie for the whale in the middle.

[CannonFodder]

Here's 6 at (111,77). It is a long way away from our main islands.

[CannonFodder]

Here's 7 at (53,61). It will significantly overlap with Rivertown, but it's easy to get to.

[CannonFodder]

Here's 8 at (8,58), just north of Neo Brandenburg.

[CannonFodder]

Here's 9 at (6,82), south of Neo Brandenburg.

[CannonFodder]

And finally here's 10, at (38,82), near the Indians.

[MrWhereItsAt]

What about no. 4 ( ) one square North? That way it still gets the whale, and also the Pheasants (yum) and doesn't overlap as badly with no. 5, and not at all with Light!

[MrWhereItsAt]

I like 5 and 9 a lot, and 8 is good too.

A few points - 8 is ages away - literally the other side of the world from our Palace, so it would take forever to get there and would have awful corruption, plus it is right near those Babylonians - and we know they can reach New Brandenburg with Triremes!


9 is safer, but just as distant. 5 is my pick as it is both good for three whales , is another close base to Egypt/America and both 4 and 5 are very close to the Capital. 4 is OK for the same reasons.

3 interests me, but we need to know more about that spot - plus it is very close to Rome and India. One big potential plus in exploring there, though, is that just N of there is a big unexplored space. The section of land you see in the NW corner almost certainly backs on to the Carthaginians' land, but E of there (directly N of the proposed city) is a big area of potential land.

That's it, I guess. If anyone needs any further location info on these sites, speak up - a well-informed populace leads to good Governing decisions.

[shade]

let's take a look
site 1: very nice(just need to get rid of te swamp np there)
****

site2: loonly, to much swamp to build something right now
*

site3: personnaly I would want to see that one explored first(we could call it Atlantis...(that ancient drowned city--> there is enough water around)
***

site4:with a little modification(1 step north) definately a good site.
****

site 5: in combination with No. 4 so we can take care of some irrigation without the need of a trireme.
****(with 4) **(alone)

site6: what can I say more...
****

site7: filling up the last little pieces of land
****

site 8: nice to( btw who carres about those Babylonians... If you ask nicely they just give you their cities )
***

site 9: little to much forrest for a decent growth
**

site 10: always nice to have many troops stationned near the enemy.
****

quite an impressive list.


lets build almost all of them.


Shade

[cavebear]

I agree that 4 would be better 1 square North. We give up having gold on the citysquare, but the Pheasant is worth it. 3 food and 2 gold gets a new city off to a good start.

[CannonFodder]

4 is one sqaure north, it's just that the little blinking thing was selected one square off of where the site would be when I took the picture.

[cavebear]

Excellent! Thanks for clearing that up...

[civman2000]

the ones I voted for are all of the ones with 50% or more...I must have good taste

[Shaka Naldur]

number 8 and number 5 one square north-east
if we are going to conquer the egyptians and the americans to bulid more cities is not very useless...

[CannonFodder]

You can never have too many cities.

[shade]

Originally posted by CannonFodder
You can never have too many cities.

building new cities could also make an end to the renaming quarrel...the cities can start with those names....

Shade

[CannonFodder]

Damn straight!

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Shaka Naldur
number 8 and number 5 one square north-east

Site 5 is the center of the circle, not where the number is pasted. It would get all 3 Whales.

if we are going to conquer the egyptians and the americans to bulid more cities is not very useless...

No offense meant, but did you really mean "useless"? In context, "useful" (the opposite idea) seems to make more sense. In other words, I interpret your thought to mean that we should not build new cities if we are going to conquer existing ones.

If that is the case, I disagree. There are several sites for new cities that would be very productive and self-supporting very quickly. We have enough Musketeers to land a Settler and a Musketeer at several sites so that they would have immediate defense.

In addition, a few new cities would give us some places to share the support cost of our many military units. Apolyton, for example is supporting 6 units at a cost of 3 shields per turn. I would to relieve a few cities of that burden and take advantage of the "3 Free Unit" support we get as a Monarchy. For each new city we build, we came home 3 units at no cost.

And most of those new sites are near other civ's, so we will want 3 units in them anyway. Those freed-up shields will help the existing cities produce more Caravans and Crusaders, and we need them.

[James Adams]

I advise a slow but complete city building in every site suggested!

But let the voters decide!

[Shaka Naldur]

Originally posted by cavebear

No offense meant, but did you really mean "useless"? In context, "useful" (the opposite idea) seems to make more sense. In other words, I interpret your thought to mean that we should not build new cities if we are going to conquer existing ones.

If that is the case, I disagree. There are several sites for new cities that would be very productive and self-supporting very quickly. We have enough Musketeers to land a Settler and a Musketeer at several sites so that they would have immediate defense.

In addition, a few new cities would give us some places to share the support cost of our many military units. Apolyton, for example is supporting 6 units at a cost of 3 shields per turn. I would to relieve a few cities of that burden and take advantage of the "3 Free Unit" support we get as a Monarchy. For each new city we build, we came home 3 units at no cost.

And most of those new sites are near other civ's, so we will want 3 units in them anyway. Those freed-up shields will help the existing cities produce more Caravans and Crusaders, and we need them.

yes, i´m sorry, i meant useful

well, we´ll have to deal with a lot of cities,

I agree with all you´ve said but if we are getting around 8 cities (maybe more) from egyptians and americans, and we build 12 cities more it will seem a ICS (is the awy to spell it??) game

but is just my humble opinion

[cavebear]

I don't mean we should build *many* new cities, just a few on those locations that are *really* good. I don't want an ICS game either. As you said, we will be conquering enough additional cities soon.

[JCP]

Originally posted by CannonFodder
You can never have too many cities.

Beware : we cannot exceed 255 city in the whole world !

[James Adams]

we need to have more cities, we need to divide our population more to survive a successfull attack for rival civs!

[JCP]

Originally posted by adamsj

How adamsj may have a random a vatar !