Official Imperial expansion proposals for new city sites (925BC) - Page 2

Trevman · July 30, 2002, 14:55

All pretty good sites except maybe 7. The question is rather the loss in production outbalances its closeness and military value.

BigRed515 · July 30, 2002, 15:04

I like the city 7 location. Munich is too far in to what should be our jungle, it needs to be squeezed to our side. Before that squeeze hapens, however, we should make sure that we don't loose the iron road to a German cultural expansion. Even if city 7 will never amount to anything, we can always abandon it when Munich flips and move its 2 population to a city that needs it.

MrWhereItsAt · July 31, 2002, 00:17

I am about to agree with Sir Ralph.

Take notice, 'cause I tend to disagree with him a lot more than I should.

5, 6 and 7 are certainly the priority city sites, particularly if we are even contemplating a war against France or anyone else. The whole issue with building these cities is to ensure we get that Iron and keep AI settlements away from the area. 1 however, either as proposed or 1 square SE as I suggested, would be in range of Iron also, and this makes me believe that our top priorites should be 5, 6, 7 and 1. If we get 1, we will have two Iron resources - a little redundant yes, but dare we risk losing Iron? Furthermore, 1 would be able to grow as quickly as we need it to (flood plains), forming perhaps the most valuable city site proposed, and IMO the most important city-to-be in the land we currently have.

jdjdjd · July 31, 2002, 10:29

7 is strategically important, we need a road to preserve the iron in Ubergorsk, and we can build it fast due to its proximity to our other cities.

6 & 5 are also important to isolate Munich and stop German /Persian westward expansion

1 is good too, but that iron source could also pose a problem i.e, protecting the road leading to it, making 2 important if we get 1.

Excellent work Will.

GePap · July 31, 2002, 12:04

I have been advocating site 1 for several days now, so it definitelly gets my vote for our next city. I think site 7 would be good to help keep the road to Ubergorsk open. The other sites are either in hard to defend sites, or in not very productive ones.

Will 5001 · July 31, 2002, 18:04

I will be taking the place of Sir Ralph in the next chat since he wont be able to make it. I have suggestions to build at sites 5, 6, and 7. But in the last few turns the Persians have set up a city near Site 6, so I think that it may have to be moved one square from where it is on the map.

Robber Baron · July 31, 2002, 18:37

Regarding concerns that jungle cities will be unproductive for awhile, let me point out that with our industrious-production advantage, we should be able to grow them faster than Germany can build up Munich, if we commit workers. The fact that the eastern sites are buried in the jungle actually works to our advantage.

Captain · July 31, 2002, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by BigRed515
iron road to a German cultural expansion. Even if city 7 will never amount to anything, we can always abandon it when Munich flips and move its 2 population to a city that needs it.

do we get the 2 pop back from an abandon city? I wasn't sure. in 1.21 I thought you didn't get anything - this to prevent from using settlers to instantly clear jungle.

Kloreep · July 31, 2002, 22:42

Nothing back in either 1.21 or 1.29. However, you can build a settler while a city is pop 2 (or a worker while it's pop 1) and disband it that way, right?

Captain · July 31, 2002, 22:45

ah, i see, abandon the old-fashioned way... gotcha! makes sense.

I like all the locations. I would prioritize them in terms of strategic importance, and then also assess how likely it is another civ will get there first.

A little cramped, but at this size, who cares? Perhaps in the future we can shift it. Or the jungle->grassland in the future will make it easy to sustain growth even in cramped cities.

adaMada · July 31, 2002, 23:09

I'm def. for city 1 -- it's an unoccupied bit of land with good surrounding squares and strategic importance -- what else is there to want?

The other ones all seem very close to other cities -- as a player, I generally leave my cities far apart, but we clearly need as many cities as possible, and the AI's REX tendancies will mean that either we've got cities there or they will, so...

Should we complete these cities, however, I'd suggest that all build temples once basic defensive units are in place, with special emphisis on culture enhancements in cities two, three, and seven (as these are exceptionally close to foreign cities).

-- adaMada

Aggie · July 31, 2002, 23:24

My prefered order would be 6,5,4,2. That will give us a ring around our area. I like the northern cities too, but would wait till after our war with america since they could be very vulnerable. City 7 I am alittle hesistant about, but if we had finished the rest that city could be built. since we have 2 settler on the table I say 6,5 or 5,4 if 6 not possible due to persians.
Aggie

adaMada · July 31, 2002, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
My prefered order would be 6,5,4,2. That will give us a ring around our area. I like the northern cities too, but would wait till after our war with america since they could be very vulnerable. City 7 I am alittle hesistant about, but if we had finished the rest that city could be built. since we have 2 settler on the table I say 6,5 or 5,4 if 6 not possible due to persians.
Aggie

Didn't you hear? War with America's over

. We crushed 'em and took a few cities. Unless another one's planned for sometime soon -- I can't really keep up with everything that's going on

. Wayy to many people posting wayy to fast, lol.

-- adaMada

Harovan · August 1, 2002, 03:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
do we get the 2 pop back from an abandon city? I wasn't sure. in 1.21 I thought you didn't get anything - this to prevent from using settlers to instantly clear jungle.

You can get back all population. Just build workers and add them to other cities. As soon as the city has only 2 citizens, build a settler, make sure it doesn't expand again, and manage, that it has no food surplus at the turn the settler is built. The game will ask you if you wish to disband the city, building the settler. Say yes. Add the settler to a city. Or build a new city, in which case you lose 1 pop point, as usual.

It's important to build city 7 ASAP, people. We need to build up culture at its place by building a temple and library. Or do you wish the city ot flip to the Germans later? When culture squeezing, time matters as much as in warfare and pretty much in ever other situation in this game.

notyoueither · August 1, 2002, 04:14

7 is very important. The most of any listed.

But, what about the unsettled land in the jungle near the capitol? Far less corrupt, and with industrious workers not too hard to clear.

I haven't read it all, but yes, it seems the resettlement of some of the cities may fit a better grid in the long run. Just keep the planned moves building workers or spear in the mean time until the move can be carried out.

Also, after France the map changes. The French cities might be taken into account for long range plans.

Togas · August 8, 2002, 17:45

*bump*

Harovan · August 8, 2002, 20:09

City at spot 5 is built. City at spot 6 has been built moved by one tile, because the Persians founded a city nearby. Munich is encircled. Another settler stack is heading to spot 7 and will reach it next turnchat.

BigFurryMonster · August 9, 2002, 16:41

We need a City at location 1 !! The extra Iron can be used when our eastern road is obstructed, OR can be traded for great profit. Which nations do not have Iron yet ..?

DAVOUT · August 9, 2002, 17:12

I am afraid the site is now named Cologne.

Kuciwalker · August 9, 2002, 17:41

Sir Ralph, if you get a city to 2 pop and then disband it, do you get a settler or 2 workers? Also, if you have a city larger than 2 pop, do you get a settler and some workers, just some workers, or just a settler?

Kloreep · August 11, 2002, 01:13

If you choose abandon city, you get nothing back. The only way to save the pop is to build settlers and workers until it's down to 1 or 2 pop, make sure you're not producing excess food, and build a worker or settler respectively. In other words, the way the population is distributed is up to you.

This method does take time, though.

OPD · August 11, 2002, 10:33

Question. Is the office of imperial expansion in desperate need of another settler? (Please anyone reply)

Also what does the office think about getting a city far north which can grab some ivory.

Will 5001 · August 11, 2002, 18:26

We need another few settlers, we always need settlers!!

A city so far north for the ivory would crete big logistical and military problems, not to mention the corruption......... However with time it could grow and flourish, but at present we have higher priorities. Since the election is now going on, any questions like this might be interesting in the campaign thread!!