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

[Arnelos]

E_T,

I am EXTREMELY GLAD that you are as concerned about the "optimal cities" number and its relation to corruption as I am... I honestly feared that few others likely shared my convictions in that regard and am highly encouraged by the signs that others feel similarly.

However, as evidenced by the debate over the French war and your valiant attempts to explain how the corruption system will affect the Persian annexation, I fear that you will have to enlighten many of our colleagues to the specific adverse effects of additional cities upon us and the consequent DISADVANTAGE which far-flung colonies exact upon our empire unless they have valuable resources or luxuries to offer us which make the extra expense worth it.

We are fast approaching the point where each additional city will DETRACT more from our economy in improvement and garrison maintenance costs than it is capable of contributing in income or productivity. Once that point is reached, additional colonies will need to be justified on additional strategic concerns, the most important of which will be the presence of strategic resources (especially oil) that we may not be able to obtain in existing territory.

[E_T]

We can either produce the Settler for the new City from the Ranks of Lyons. Razing the cities before we're ready to place the new City could cause problems. I'll look to see where I could generate a Settler someplace close, but I'm not sure I could have it ready before the war starts. Besides, We can also get extra Slaves from these cities before were done with them.

I see abandoning Lyons first, then Basanon (to help keep Greek cultureal pressure at bay). Or we can Raze the one and bleed the other for workers until it's abandond.

E_T

[Aggie]

One thing has really made me wonder, assuming we get the GA during this war, how would that effect 2 things, corruption and speed of FP being built. If the GA offset corruption enough we could take all the cites and disband them at our leisure for workers and settlers. We could place the new cities in a more optimal postion with less cities and also satisfy the need for more workers. Is this a reasonable idea. One thing to remember is that we wouldn't take the other cities till turns 6+ so we would have only a few turns of the extra corruption. I guess the question is this do the extra workers + more optimal cities outweigh the corruption over the turns before the FP adds to the number of cities we can have. I'm just wondering if this compromise could do all our goals(workers,low corruption, France's destruction, and optimal city placement) and end up having a better position than where we started.
Aggie

[E_T]

Originally posted by Arnelos
E_T,

I am EXTREMELY GLAD that you are as concerned about the "optimal cities" number and its relation to corruption as I am... I honestly feared that few others likely shared my convictions in that regard and am highly encouraged by the signs that others feel similarly.

However, as evidenced by the debate over the French war and your valiant attempts to explain how the corruption system will affect the Persian annexation, I fear that you will have to enlighten many of our colleagues to the specific adverse effects of additional cities upon us and the consequent DISADVANTAGE which far-flung colonies exact upon our empire unless they have valuable resources or luxuries to offer us which make the extra expense worth it.

Yes, it seems that some people are easier to sway than others. I feel that war is necessary. when it is advantagious to us and weakens our Opponants. If at the same time, it weakens us too, then there's no point in having the war, at that time. THe GA in combination with some of the added Corruption effects balance out and we still come out ahead. After the GA is over, we should have the FP in place or so very close to being in place that it won't matter at that time.

We are fast approaching the point where each additional city will DETRACT more from our economy in improvement and garrison maintenance costs than it is capable of contributing in income or productivity. Once that point is reached, additional colonies will need to be justified on additional strategic concerns, the most important of which will be the presence of strategic resources (especially oil) that we may not be able to obtain in existing territory.

Part of that is due to corrution and waste. I hear some rumbles that these courthouses that I'm rushing and such high cost aren't needed and we should either ignore them or abandon them. I had even seen one person advocating razing our Temples & Cathedrals, so that we don't get the old American Cities to flip to us (and even worsten the Corrution problem). Of course, he was talking about having 6 cities flip, whereas, I beleave that we will only see 2 to 3 (if were that lucky) flip and not be that great of a burden to us.

With the FP in place, we can expand our empire to almost double it's current size and not have any adverse effects form corrution and still support a large Military and city Improvements.

Zululand looks very promising for Conquest, as they almost have the corner on the Gem market. But that can wait for a while as they are still very backwards and will trade their Gems for Tech for quite a while. We would also have to reevaluate the placement of the Palace, to help keep those cities productive.

E_T

[E_T]

Originally posted by Aggie
One thing has really made me wonder, assuming we get the GA during this war, how would that effect 2 things, corruption and speed of FP being built. If the GA offset corruption enough we could take all the cites and disband them at our leisure for workers and settlers. We could place the new cities in a more optimal postion with less cities and also satisfy the need for more workers. Is this a reasonable idea. One thing to remember is that we wouldn't take the other cities till turns 6+ so we would have only a few turns of the extra corruption. I guess the question is this do the extra workers + more optimal cities outweigh the corruption over the turns before the FP adds to the number of cities we can have. I'm just wondering if this compromise could do all our goals(workers,low corruption, France's destruction, and optimal city placement) and end up having a better position than where we started.
Aggie

I think that the GA will offset the Added effects of corrution and will still have a positive overall effect. Also, remember that the new citiy additions will not effect corrution/waste in all of the cities that are closer to the Palace (i.e. our main core Cities or about 3/5ths of our current holdings). These cities will be able to still contribure greatly to our overall Economy & Science during the GA. We'll also be able to get them "up to snuff" with the needed core improvements of Libraries, Markets, Cathedrals & Aquaducts. Some of them will even have a good start on Banks or Universities by the end of the GA.

E_T

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Arnelos
E_T,

I am EXTREMELY GLAD that you are as concerned about the "optimal cities" number and its relation to corruption as I am... I honestly feared that few others likely shared my convictions in that regard and am highly encouraged by the signs that others feel similarly.

However, as evidenced by the debate over the French war and your valiant attempts to explain how the corruption system will affect the Persian annexation, I fear that you will have to enlighten many of our colleagues to the specific adverse effects of additional cities upon us and the consequent DISADVANTAGE which far-flung colonies exact upon our empire unless they have valuable resources or luxuries to offer us which make the extra expense worth it.

We are fast approaching the point where each additional city will DETRACT more from our economy in improvement and garrison maintenance costs than it is capable of contributing in income or productivity. Once that point is reached, additional colonies will need to be justified on additional strategic concerns, the most important of which will be the presence of strategic resources (especially oil) that we may not be able to obtain in existing territory.

Thats a bunch of bunk, many of us brought up the OCN issue many months ago when we were determining our long range goals which is why I had campaigned for a more efficient use of Uber Isle (used 2 less cities) and holding after the complete conquest of France.

To bring it up now after it was rejected and we now have inefficient cities when we have much better city sites available is kind of short-sighted.

If OCN is a major concern why did we Build San Cortes to take another THREE cities. San Cortes plus the three cities it is trying to flip will add 4 more cities to our empire. That's more than the additional ones we will gain from the French

Anyway, not that it matters but when I was the RA for Siberia the plan discussed was to reallocate the French cities as shown in the attached map. 1a and 1b are alternate sites for the same city. 1b covering more jungle and makes it more likely to encompass coal (from a jungle tile) to make the city eligible for the Ironworks.

As for Dijon, well Dijon was burned for mustard.........

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Thats a bunch of bunk

I love the history of this little word

The word actually is derived from the practice of one Carolina (don't remember which state) congressman who made a habit of taking to the floor and giving speaches that were purely about his home district (which was called 'bunk-something'... don't remember the exact name) rather than addressing the chamber. As a result, other members of the legislature started to condescendingly refer to these speeches of his as "pure bunk".... and a word was born

[realpolitic]

Blue: we are THE world power Resources and protecting what we have should take priority over territory.
My second choice is nowhere, because everywhere else just gets us a few tiles.

[Jonny]

Genghis: That looks like a really good plan. Now that the war on France has started and we've already razed several cities, I'll probably put a poll up soon and see if your plan for France is acceptable.

[E_T]

I have a settler in the works at Here it is. We can use him for the first city do any move with. I would like to see it establish the new proposed site that's between Basancon & Lyons, but that will be up to you're department. But, if we combine the two cities, we need to lay it first, get a Temple going and add the Stlrs that will be generated from Lyons & Basancon to get it to WLKD ASAP to help prevent a flip. The HII settler wil be ready next turn and will take 2 turns to get to that one site. Lyons has 3 POP and is working on a Worker then a Settler to disband with. I don't think that you can build a city that close to Lyons without getting rid of Lyons first. We'll have to rush the Worker & Settler. We can let Basancon build a little more normally and the rush cost will be less, but it will also have to be rushed.

Also, I have Ameins started on a settler, and we can move it south by one. It will be ready in 5 turns, unless rushed (currently 100L and subtract 20LPT).

If we take the War to a complete conquest, then I also suggest moving Tours NE by one. this will have it well spaced between the newly proposed site and current location of Grenoble.

Let me know what you might need.

E_T

[Donegeal]

No, we haven't razed any cities yet (and I don't think we are planning to). As for the rest of the Greco-Gaul Coast, I'm not sure that we voted to take the French out entirerly (and with Cav, could and should be done quickly).

My post is concerning the Aztec city of Chicago. When or if it flips to us, I think it might be best if we disbanded it and moved it two tiles to the NE (or to tile 10 in its current city radius). Let me know what you think....

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by E_T
I don't think that you can build a city that close to Lyons without getting rid of Lyons first. We'll have to rush the Worker & Settler. We can let Basancon build a little more normally and the rush cost will be less, but it will also have to be rushed.

Both 1a and 1b have a 1 tile space between them and an existing city so all of the city sites can be founded while the current cities exist with the exception of Amiens.