Notes regarding Another Glorious City

[Shiber]

Another Glorious City is currently building a granary and will be done in 12 turns. In the mean time it is stockpiling food and it will grow to 3 population in 9 turns.
AGC cannot support 3 population unless we send another unit to serve as military police or we turn the 3rd citizen into a specialist. I suggest that we reduce the city's population. There are two ways to achieve this:

1. Switch production to settler (will be done in 2 turns).
2. Continue building the granary for another 5 turns, then rush it at the cost of 48 gold and then switch to building a worker. The worker will be done just in time for the growth in population so we won't reach 3.

[Shiber]

IMHO both options are good. It's simply up to Godking to decide upon the two.

[GhengisFarb™]

I have no problem with the worker plan, but think we should build a temple afterwords. I think AGC should fluctuate between pop 5 and 3 to maximize settler building time. That way the city will always be using the whale, cow, and gold resources.

I feel we should build a temple in AGC and subsequent cities on Uber Island to keep the populace happy AND expand their cultural radius in order to keep AI settlers from settling in the gaps.

[Shiber]

Agreed. So it's either settler and then temple or money-rush the granary in five turns, then settler, then a worker or a settler or a temple, depending on ministerial decisions.

[GhengisFarb™]

No, AGC should be size 3-5 all the time. So it would build settlers when it hits size 5. That will be faster than knocking it down to one all the time.

[Shiber]

With a temple we can safely reach 3 pop. but we can't go higher than that without additional garrisons or entertainers. What do you suggest we do?
Keep in mind that we can't transport any luxuries to the island until we get Astronomy.

[GhengisFarb™]

If not enough garrison available I'd just use entertainers. You only need three pop at the site to maximize the production time anyway, the other two are just building up to be part of the settler.

[Donal Graeme]

I agree with Ghengis. Spending the money in that manner is non-productive at this point. Also, what is the point of building a settler that creates an undefended city? It is better to finish the granary, switch to an entertainer, and then build a worker or two to improve the land. Also, a temple would be good after the first worker. That way we can prevent them from occupying the land. However, AGC building up culture won't be as benefitial as our next city building a temple, as they AI will not build between those two cities. Rushing temples should be for the more souther cities.

[Robber Baron]

I would make a temple a high priority in this city. We need to start accumulating culture and population on Uber Island, IMO, in case other civs plant on the island before we have a chance to blanket it with our cities.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Donal Graeme
I agree with Ghengis. Spending the money in that manner is non-productive at this point. Also, what is the point of building a settler that creates an undefended city? It is better to finish the granary, switch to an entertainer, and then build a worker or two to improve the land. Also, a temple would be good after the first worker. That way we can prevent them from occupying the land. However, AGC building up culture won't be as benefitial as our next city building a temple, as they AI will not build between those two cities. Rushing temples should be for the more souther cities.

I agree I think order should be:

AGC; granary, worker, worker, temple, settler, spearman (repeat settler, spearman until southern cities are all founded)

Southern cities; temple, spearman (if it was my game I'd build barracks second then spearman), worker, library and then on.........

Each city has a worker and AGC has an extra one to join the cities together. Might have a central city start working on Palace (it's going to take a while).

[wervdon]

How many settlers do we have coming from the main land?

Either way, i'd finish the granary to maximize growth before switching to anything else.

Then id probally rush build a temple next as soon as we can afford and its got at least 1 shield contributed so the price goes down.

Then either settlers or workers depending on how many more settlers we need to get all our cities placed as soon as possible. Mixed with defensive units when the population is building from 3 back to 5.

[nz_upy]

I support Genghis's plan where us AGC as a base of colonisation once it becomes the most efficient to do so at Pop 3-5 because otherwise it would be faster just to ferry from the mainland than sacrificing the bonus squares and rebuilding from Pop 1 all the time.

[Aro]

The Ghengis's plan seems to be perfect.

[GodKing]

HI

I had requested the grainery to be purchased the turn before AGC went from 1 pop to two pop. Unfortunately, we were out of money. I have indicated at this point that the grainery and a worker need to be purchased prior to reaching size three, otherwise we are waisting the extra pop as a tax man.

The ability to use the money so far is an undefined responsibility. No minister has control. Therefor, if in his war effort the SMC uses all the gold the first turn to purchase units and upgrades, CP has to wait until the money is replenished. The same is true otherwise, if I purchase a large number of temples and drain the treasury, then the SMC has no power..... A searious problem with how we are organized. One that I know the constitutional convention is awair of and that they are planning on addressing (how I do not know).

GK

[Shiber]

IMHO if multiple offices plan to make purchases the next 5 turns then they should sort things out with each other. Passing rules regarding spending money will only hurt our flexibility.

[OPD]

I dunno maybe that would make the more dominant ministers more likely to get the money.

Perhaps the VP should be in charge of delegating funds. If ministers requested money before each set of turn the VP could judge which is the most vital.

[Shiber]

Ok, how about this: ministers that wish to issue orders which involve spending money should post a separate list of how much money they'd like to spend each turn. The VP or his proxy will then check to see if the figures are correct and if they clash, and come up with a compromise (preferably after talking to the relevant ministers).

[DAVOUT]

It could be like this :

The Minister of Economy make a forecast for the next five turns of the amount of cash available taking into account all previous comitments.

The Ministers make a list of spendings they wish to do; then they allocate priorities. These priorities might be absolute (we dont spend any money until we have enough), or relative (we skip the item and buy the following for which we have enough).