Ministry of Imperial Expansion (Term V) - Ideas and Comments Thread

Jonny · October 18, 2002, 22:28

Hello from Jonny, your new Minister of Imperial Expansion.

As you are most likely aware of, there aren't many city sites remaining. And although I do have some ideas, I would like to hear the people's ideas.

If you have any ideas or comments about new cities, or anything involving the IE ministry, this is the place to post it.

I will post my ideas soon, but it may be a little while before I get around to doing that.

GhengisFarb™ · October 18, 2002, 22:45

If you need help with citysite map plans, let me know.

Jonny · October 19, 2002, 23:39

I've taken a look at our current situation, and I've found 7 possible city sites that border our current territory. Now, they aren't optimal city sites (all of those are taken), or even very good for that matter, but they still are possible city sites, and deserve consideration. The city sites are on 4 seperate maps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map 1: Persian Lowlands

Red Site: By building a city at the red site, and building up its culture, we could exert more "cultural pressure" on the English city of Oxford, and increase the likelyhood of it flipping to us. Now, a culture flip in Oxford would be unlikely because it has a built up culture and it is far away from our capital, but it could still happen. This site is also along a river, and somewhat further away from our other cities (compared to other possible city sites.)

Gray Site: Same "cultural pressure" benefits as red site above, but the gray site is not next to a fresh water source, and is closer to Contaginon.

Blue Site: If a city was built here, it could act as a "buffer city" between English territory and Contaginon (the probable Forbidden Palace site), to protect Contaginon and the FP from an English invasion. It would also push back England's borders some. It is also surrounded by decent terrain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map 2: What Used To Be America - East

Light Orange Site: By building a city here and building up its culture, we could increase the probability of culture flips in Washington and Boston. It would also be surrounded by fairly good terrain.

Dark Orange Site: Building a city here and building up its culture would also increase the probability of cutlure flips in Washington and Boston. It might also push back German borders some. However, this site does not have as good terrain as the light orange site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map 3: What Used To Be America - West

Purple Site: Building a city here and building up its cutlure would increase the probability of a Chicago culture flip, and push back German and Greek borders. It could also help create a "territorial bridge" between Greater Apolyton and 2 of the remaining Persian cities near the North Coast of Ababanana.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map 4: Apolyton-France Border Region

White Site: I don't see any real advantages to building here, other than the fact that it would be on a gold deposit, and that it would somewhat extend our territory into French lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd really, really appreciate your comments on these possible city sites. Which ones are good, and which ones are bad? If you do think we should build at some of these, which one first?

If you have your own city site ideas, please post them here.

Kloreep · October 20, 2002, 00:23

Red: Good.
Gray: Overlaps a lot, and the culture doesn't mean much if Red Site is established.
Blue: The right square could challenge York's borders well, but wouldn't there be a high chance of flip?
Light Orange: I'm not sure, as the map doesn't show much south of it and I don't have Civ3 open.
Dark Orange: Having to cross through Aztec territory aside, wouldn't this city have a high chance of flip?
Purple: Finding a way to get a Settler there aside, do we really want a border with a former enemy? And we couldn't finish the Persians off; those are only two cities out of four, IIRC.
White: I don't see much point either, especially since it looks like we're going a-conquering in France again.

Meshelic · October 20, 2002, 00:49

The two best sites in my opinion are the southernmost Red square and the eastern Blue square. Anywhere else is pretty risky for both bordering aggressive nations (or soon to be conquered ones) and for the possible culture flips.

The eastern Blue block is excellent in my opinion. Near gold, near water, near grasslands, and not too close to the other city radius('s). It's closeness to York however might make it prone to cultural flip if it doesn't get a temple, marketplace, etc. But I think the English favor us, correct? If so then we won't have to worry too much.

Red is good as it is along a river, and the forests will benefit a colony there. Good site for tightening up the borders near England.

Gray is no good to us unless it's decided NOT to build Red, but in this location. Oxford doesn't present us with much threat in this location...

Shiber · October 20, 2002, 07:14

Red sites: I would prefer the northeastern tile since it will be closer to the FP.
White site: I like it. It can use a lot of currently unusued mountain tiles but it won't grow very much so the citizens won't take too many tiles away from HII.
Purple: I like the northmost site.

The rest aren't very appealing IMHO. Anyway, good work Jonny!

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 14:49

I would be against founding any additional cities in marginal city sites at this time...

My reasoning?

Simple: One of the two determinants of corruption is a rank of a city in comparison to the "optimal city number" for the size of map you are playing on... Since it seems to be almost a consensus that we're going to be taking over EVEN MORE foreign cities in the future, this means that such large and highly productive cities will have the furthest ranks from #1 and thus the highest corruption... establishing small cities to use up 1-4 unused tiles which will have closer ranks will add little in productive and trade value while further depressing the value of any foreign cities we may capture.

So that's why I'm against founding any cities at this point to use up small pieces of unused land. My strategy was ENTIRELY THE OPPOSITE in Civ2, but in Civ3 the stupid "optimal cities" number makes it prohibitive to found lots of less-useful cities.

Meshelic · October 20, 2002, 18:33

So Arnelos what do you propose the minister of IE do if he can't lay down new cities? Explore more? ....nope. He can't do that since we aren't researching any naval techs, which is the only way to know if there are any more sites out there.

what else could he do? Wait for the military to raze cities and build in their place? Well yeah he could do that but that makes for a pretty dull wait, and you mentioned 'capture' before anything else, thus leaving that plan out....

By suggesting that the IE minister NOT build cities at any time, you are basically suggesting that the post be abolished. I don't support that at all.

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 19:34

Meshelic,

So, basically, you're saying that because we HAVE an IE minister, we should build cities whether or not it's in our interests to actually do so - simply to give the poor guy something to do?

It's not necessarily the case that we shouldn't found cities at all, but I noticed a lack of discussion (and perhaps a lack of awareness) on the "optimal cities" effect and what effect THAT should have our on expansion plans... So we CAN found additional cities, but we should ensure that they are WORTH IT (in shield and trade income). Founding cities to cover 1-2 tiles probably doesn't make that standard...

Panzer32 · October 20, 2002, 20:01

I think the ministry of imperial expansion is starting to become redundant, and should be incorporated into another ministry (CP is maybe the best one, not great though) at the end of this term, unless we happen to find an unexpected large unsettled area.

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 20:05

Panzer,

The irony of your statement is that the IE ministry already IS being rolled into the new "Domestic Minister" position created by the NewCon which would combine the current CP, Public Works, and IE into one super-ministry

Panzer32 · October 20, 2002, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
Panzer,

The irony of your statement is that the IE ministry already IS being rolled into the new "Domestic Minister" position created by the NewCon which would combine the current CP, Public Works, and IE into one super-ministry

Good

Meshelic · October 20, 2002, 22:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
Meshelic,

So, basically, you're saying that because we HAVE an IE minister, we should build cities whether or not it's in our interests to actually do so - simply to give the poor guy something to do?

Well I see how you get that. And yes you're right, in the sense that while there is less and less for the IE to do. I think however that some of the city sites are USABLE, albeit the fact that they aren't PERFECT. And for the amount of cities we do have it's not going to hurt us that much more. I think the possible cultural benefits are greater then the downsides.

I think that it's too bad that Jonny just won the race for IE minister and events changed, rendering the IE less important and with less to do. As his Deputy, that also means I have less to do as well.

nz_upy · October 21, 2002, 02:20

I think that the IE should be put in charge of naval expansion if the ability to build cities is taken from him.

Panzer32 · October 21, 2002, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by nz_upy
I think that the IE should be put in charge of naval expansion if the ability to build cities is taken from him.

Who is in charge of exploring? the SMC? I find the whole constitution thing confusing, so it is hard for me to decipher.

Meshelic · October 21, 2002, 16:14

Panzer32 - exploring is both under the jurisdiction of the SMC and the IE. Currently THAT is being worked out in the constitution (I believe) and those responsible are hammering out the results soon.

Arnelos · October 21, 2002, 17:09

I'd be in favor of exploration being under the IE for now, as I argued in another thread... but I think Aggie is currently working on naming a deputy for that.

Perhaps Jonny and Aggie should go talk the matter over?

Meshelic · October 21, 2002, 18:02

Arnelos actually Aggie has named his deputies. Those positions fall to myself and Shiber.

Jonny · October 21, 2002, 22:58

I believe that at the current time exploration is under the control of both the SMC and the IE minister. (I think it works by the IE minister telling the SMC which general direction to explore in, and then the SMC actually moves the units and does the exploring.)

And Panzer, I agree - the IE ministry is obviously becoming redundant and obsolete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any more comments on the city sites?

I believe I will start a poll soon, asking if we should build a city at ANY of the sites. If poll shows that we should build a city at one (or more) of the sites, I will then have a poll to see which of the sites we should build at first.

Aggie · October 22, 2002, 13:49

For the record exploration is and will be under the SMC, and I have appointed deputies for this job. However the IE's input will always be appreciated and considered. This job will become more visible once we get navigation, right now we are moving our galley along the sea/ocean barrier to see what we can see. Soon a galley will be in that large area of sea off the english coast.
Aggie

Aggie · October 22, 2002, 13:52

Jonny I really like the city site near the wheat, neat the old american city, a culturally strong city here could secure a flip of those cities.
Aggie

Meshelic · October 22, 2002, 17:18

I agree with Aggie upon further review of the maps. There really is only 1 site that will be of much use. That is, unless we sack a city and burn it down...

Meshelic · October 22, 2002, 22:24

YES! Made it to Prince!

In light of my recent promotion, I shall throw a huge party at my home in Tassagrad, all are invited!

Panzer32 · October 23, 2002, 16:22

Im supplying the music:

Meshelic · October 23, 2002, 18:37

nice! panzer32, hehe

E_T · October 24, 2002, 14:26

I would like to discuss some possible plans for our soon to be new cities. With the addition of 5 Cities, it will effect corruption in our outlying cities, Including Contagion and the FP build. I'd like to do two things:
1) Move Amiens south by one tile. Jerusalem's borders will be expanding next turn (730AD) and so the move will not effect our access to the SP deposit that is between the two cities. This also allows New Amiens to have access to the Plains to the SW and be able to grow to a fairly good size (Especially after they are RR'ed).

2) Combine Lyons & Basancon to a spot that will cover both the Iron & SP deposits, here is the map (pardon the messiness of it):

THis will do a couple of things:
a) Reduce cultural pressure on the city from the Greek Capitol of Athens. We might just conquer Basancon and have it quickly flip to the Greeks. We will have to spend a lot of money to prevent that.
b) Reduce by 1 the number of cities that will be contributing to our overall corrution in our outlying cities (atleast until the FP is built).
c) better access to more Grassland for Growth

E_T

Jonny · October 25, 2002, 18:51

E_T, I really like the idea of building a new city between Bescanon and Lyons. Of course, that will have to wait until we conquer and destroy those cities...

nz_upy · October 25, 2002, 19:09

And this New Site has a good chance of giving us an ironworks. Yeh Baby.

Shiber · October 25, 2002, 21:14

Good point!

Aggie · October 25, 2002, 23:41

Good idea Et. by the way we are now t-5 for attack.
Aggie