An urgent matter !

[Spiffor]

I've just seen something horrible. Remember that Persian Settler-stack roaming in our territory ?
I've just imagined it's going to settle in citysite #1 as per Jonny's plans (I think Will5001 considers it a valuable city as well). Here's a picture :


The stack will be there in 10 turns.

I imagined solutions to avoid that. Among them, we have :
- Building a settler in Termina, rather than a spearman. It won't work, because we'd need 14-15 turns to get there

- Building a settler in Tassagrad. 10 turns needed just to build it. Too late already.

- Building a settler in BHQ instead of a Temple. According to my calculation, we'd have 2 turns ahead. But the operation is risky, because Persians could settle in a slightly nearer location, before us. Plus, we'd lose all our work on BHQ's temple, which is bad for our culture and border cohesion.

- Building a settler in Del Monte, instead of a barracks. We'd waste 2 shields, but the settler will be ready in 3 turns (because our pop will expand to 3 in 3 turns). It will settle in 5 turns. This will also help preventing the Greeks going there).

Among all these solutions, only 2 are working (BHQ and Del Monte), and only Del Monte's one offers enough guarantees, and won't cost us a much needed temple (it will cost us a less needed barracks in this remote city).
So I say the next city planner should change production in Del Monte to settler at the very beginning of next turnchat / thread.

Edit : taken Del Monte's population growth into account.

[OPD]

Hmmn
Perhaps you should talk to the SMC about a possible blockade if it's going to be close. Workers could do the job, as were about to go to war and all.

[Aro]

Spiffor:
You're pretty right!

[jdd2007]

a Del Monte settler looks like the only good solution

[GePap]

I don't think the issue is that threatening: we can use our units to slow the persians, plus, even if they make it, such a city would easily fall to our culture. Even if it is a short-term inconvinience, it is no more a long term threat than Munich.

[Donal Graeme]

Where is City Site #1 supposed to be? perhaps there will be another way of dealing with the problem, including a blockade.

[Spiffor]

OPD : a blockade could buy us quite some time (enough to make sure a BHQ's settler settles without problem). But it won't be enough for Termina's or Tassagrad's settler to be in time.
Plus, it would leave our conquered cities defenseless, during our war with France (the blockade, to be effective, would need us to move our units along with the Persians), thus letting the cities defenseless for a longer time)

EDIT : Donal, city #1 is supposed to be in the square where something horribly blurry is written in red, on the upper left of the picture

EDIT #2 : Gepap, the problem is that this is a good land (important to grab quickly). Plus, this land is surrounded by Greek cities, and the Persian city there will be more likely to fall for Greek culture (proximity of Athens, scientific trait, AI production bonuses means faster libraries / temples, thus higher culture)

[adaMada]

Spiffor's right (why do I feel like I've been saying that a lot recently? ). We should go with the Del Monte plan, and settle there before the Persians do. We should also keep an eye out for any other settler stacks, especially since persia's got a ROP (though a lack of one never seemed to stop the AI from settling wherever it wanted before).

-- adaMada

[Jonny]

I first spotted that settler some time ago, when first making my plans for expansion, but I didn't know where it was going.

But now, it seems it is headed for Site 1. After all, that seems to be the only viable city site left in the area.

We must build the Del Monte settler!

[History Guy]

Blast. He's right. Del Monte should at once be used to build that bloody little settler. It's the only way. Filthy Persians.

[Aggie]

One problem, a settler takes 2 people delmonte is at 2, it would diband del monte right? Anyway if they do get the city we or the greeks most likely get it through cultural sssimilation later.
Aggie

[MrWhereItsAt]

10 turns, huh? I'm still trying to find that thread that details where exactly City site #1 is. When I've found it I'll edit this and give a response (I'd better get into the habit of it...).

[Spiffor]

Aggie : you're right, I forgot this important detail. If we switch to settler now, it'll be produced in 3 turns rather than one.

But it doesn't change the main part : even if DelMonte's settler settles in 5 turns rather than 3, he'll still be ahead of Persia's (and hopefuly ahead of any Greek one)

I'll edit my first post to take demographic growth into account.

EDIT : MWIA, you can find IE plans there : http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=58481

[MrWhereItsAt]

I count 12 turns - could you please check when that settler will arrive at site 1? I count 6 turns 'till it arrives on the Dyes 2x NE of Gaia, and then 2 to the road, then 4 from there. If I am missing another way, please let me know.

Assuming they will get there in 10 or 12 turns, I support the settling of that site ASAP - I thought maybe we could flip it, but that site is too close to Greece and too far from our cultural centre for that.

[Aggie]

I was doing some thinking and I agree the settler is heading there as i see no other objective, however I think the likelyhood is that a settler from either america or greece will get there first(lets hope america). One question how long has boston been 1, if is a short time most certainly that settle is on the way to that point. I would concede that city right now since unless i am wrong(and I could be) somebody else wll beat us to that spot even if we produce a settler in 3 turns. But if it makes you feel better the persian will also get denied, though as i said earlier i think that city is doomed from a culture standpoint for anybody except us or greece. One worry also, if the persians are denied that city will they use the settle and go for uber island with a galley.
Darn ROP, I would have opposed it greatly if i had been up to date then.
Aggie

[Spiffor]

The stack is E-E of dyes NE-NE of Gaia. It will arrive there in 2 turns then.

Edit : Aggie : I think Boston is because Washington was founded a short while ago. Except if Americans make a settler very soon in Chicago (pop 3), the Yanks have a very little chance to get it before the Persians or Greeks.

[OPD]

I think the Yanks will be/are building alot of setters as they have millitary and aren't building a wonder.

Also I haven't loaded up the game but I think we have a few workers SW,SW of Gaia which could slow the stack down. Especially if a ither units could deflect their path.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Yeah, build from Del Monte. We can build a Barracks there later.

If we build there in time, what would the Persian stack do?

[kring]

I support the settler build.

If the Persians do move the settler team back, it will still take fair amount of time for them to get them anywhere else.

[Harovan]

Yes, build a settler in Del Monte. It's by far the best solution. There's nothing more important than settlers in the early game. A barracks in a pretty corrupt city won't do much good. And I don't expect that we need it soon to heal troups. Our Archers are soon obsolete anyway.

[Inverse Icarus]

QUICK! DECLARE WAR ON PERSIA AND POPRUSH SWORDSMEN ALL AROUND...

i mean, sure. build the settler.

[Spiffor]

Godking :
Now that you're the city planner, what is your stance about this ? You are the one who gets to decide, and to get the thing done.

[adaMada]

Yea, GodKing, I think it's time for an "Emergency Resolution" or something .

-- adaMada

[SABRA]

We should build there , but we should also send a unit with it , just in case the Persians have any funny ideas .

[Shiber]

There's no chance they'll use the spearman they sent with the settler to attack our settler. They know their settler will fall as well when we counterattack.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by SABRA
We should build there , but we should also send a unit with it , just in case the Persians have any funny ideas .

Though I agree that defending the city once we have it is (obviously) important, I say go with the settler as soon as we've got it -- the Persians won't attack it with a settler/spearman stack, and I don't think any nation would attack the single settler/city 'just because' -- they're more likely to declare war on us for something else, and then attack that point as a weak point.

Basically, as long as we get protection there before too long, I think we're ok...

-- adaMada

[MrWhereItsAt]

Agreed. Our city will be safe for a while from all except barbs. In Civ3 the AI seems to be a lot more for peace, that is unless there is some reason for hostility. We have not IIRC broken any treaties, we are not threatening in terms of size, and we have had no prior conflict with Persia or any allies they may have (ignoring America) - we are OK.

[SABRA]

Originally posted by adaMada


Though I agree that defending the city once we have it is (obviously) important, I say go with the settler as soon as we've got it -- the Persians won't attack it with a settler/spearman stack, and I don't think any nation would attack the single settler/city 'just because' -- they're more likely to declare war on us for something else, and then attack that point as a weak point.

Basically, as long as we get protection there before too long, I think we're ok...

-- adaMada

Indeed we should go , but as soon as we got a unit we should send it , and in the mean time we should build something there .
Otherwise its like an easy gift for the AI .

[Shiber]

We can't wait until we can build a spearman to guard this town and as MWIA says it's very unlikely that any other civ will try to capture the settler.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
We can't wait until we can build a spearman to guard this town and as MWIA says it's very unlikely that any other civ will try to capture the settler.

hi ,

well we should send a unit out AFTER the settler is gone , or when the new town is build , as soon as we have a unit somewhere we should send it to our new town , ....

have a nice day