RESOLUTION: Where Settler#2 should settle.

Gilgamensch · March 19, 2003, 19:18

RESOLUTION: Where Settler#2 should settle.

This poll is to determine the final place for our new city, which will be named Maquidad.

This poll will have 3 options:

Yes, means you agree with to settle north of the forest close to the southern potato.
No, you don't agree.
Abstain/don't care you don't care about.

(screenshot will be provided by Martin)

The poll will expire on 23/03/03 00:00 GMT

EDIT: slight misunderstanding between Martin and me.

Martin Gühmann · March 19, 2003, 19:37

Here is the screenshot for the East settler:

I think we should move it more South, but still not shure.

-Martin

Pedrunn · March 19, 2003, 20:10

This one is tricky. sometimes i think we should settle SW of the potato tile. But that is too far yet is the best spot.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 19, 2003, 20:44

sorry, but that place is lousy, unless we incorporate the latifundia from cradle

NO!

Gilgamensch · March 20, 2003, 05:07

Zaphod,

the what?

Haven't played craddle yet...........

Pedrunn,

And Yes, it is a tricky one, the advantage of this spot would be to 'counter' the Indians(?) and have a 'production plant' close to them.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 20, 2003, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Zaphod,

the what?

Haven't played craddle yet...........

Pedrunn,

And Yes, it is a tricky one, the advantage of this spot would be to 'counter' the Indians(?) and have a 'production plant' close to them.

a commerce ti that also gives +5 food and can be placed on hills as well, but thats not relevant

a town that won't grow won't be a production plant

Gilgamensch · March 20, 2003, 06:24

Ah, the growth:

Yes, it is limited in growth (for the moment):

But:
1.) We have the potato giving extra food
2.) Little bit later we could transform the forest into plain.
3.) Till we reache size 2, we just use a settler (faster anyway).

[ 4.) would be nice to have

]

4.) we can add 1/2 farms
5.) the rest might be gone soon..........

Just my thoughts.........

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 20, 2003, 06:29

well about what place exactly do we speak?

child of Thor · March 20, 2003, 07:54

Hmmm........well it would grow very slowly with no plains/river/grassland. So i think we should look for another site - the hills by themselves will act as a sort of barrier to the injuns(

), and a faster growing site with some production capability would be better at building units to defend any possible injun incursions into our territory. So put it somewhere else please

IMHO if we build roads along the present border with the hills we can always have a 'rapid reaction' force to patrol that border, so we shouldn't feel we have to place a city in a bad spot to contain the injuns.
Oh yeah the problem with the potato site is that it is too near the present injun border - our city would have restricted growth, so lets use the hills as a natural border and site our town around them, rather than in them.

Locutus · March 20, 2003, 08:47

The problem is that there are no good sites availabe, we basically built 1 Settler too many. But of all the poor sites available, the Potato tile is the best one. Not north, east, west or south of it, or in any other way close to it, but on the tile itself. The Grassland+Potato tile will give a good food bonus and thus ensure fast growth. That will allow the city to quickly build up a strong defense to fend off any plans the Indians may have. We can see where to go from there. Any other tile in that area will have far less growth, meaning our city will basically be a sitting duck for India.

If we don't settle on the Potato tile itself, we should just go back to mapfipolis and disband the Settler there, giving 1 extra pop to that city...

Since this poll apparently polls the location NW of the Potato, I voted No.

child of Thor · March 20, 2003, 09:07

So on the potato; what about border squash as that is next to the indian border?
And what about distance from the rest of our cities, and bad(expensive) land for building roads on?
I'm hopeing that our relations are ok with the indians if we plan to build right next to them and far from our supply chain?
Wouldn't a city within our territory(like the two sites i mentioned in my previous post), that could be used for building additional units etc be better than non at all?

Locutus · March 20, 2003, 09:22

The two sites you suggested are bad choices. The gap between Graz and Pedrunnia is already being settled by another Settler. The Wheat site between Pedrunn and H Town would be stupid: both sites will get city radii of 3 in the future, making their radii (almost) border on each other. In that case a small city in between the two would only eat up tiles that the big ones need much harder.

We'll be building right next to the Indian border, not inside it. That shouldn't affect our relationship with India at all, but it does make us vulnerable to attack.

The only good city spots on the map that I can see at this point are far, far south of our own border and north of Austria. Both are too far away to support (at least for now).

child of Thor · March 20, 2003, 09:44

Cross-post-tastic!

OK i'm getting persuaded, and you are right about the wheat site.
What about a square on grassland near the timber and aligator? It appears there is a river from Granz,that could be used as a quick supply line if we need to send troops south.
The only reason i'm going for alternative sites to the one right next to injun territory is that it just looks difficult to defend and very isolated.
If we plan to build a road network, in addition crossing all those hills will cost alot of PW. Still if you don't like the timber/alligator site i would rather see the city on the potato than disbanded- seems a waste?

Pedrunn · March 20, 2003, 09:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
but on the tile itself. .

This will make we lost the bonus for having the good given by the Martins goods.slc. Son we can settle ON them.

Since the bonus are given by TIs that like all TIs are removed when a city is built on it.

Locutus · March 20, 2003, 10:23

CoT,
The distance between the river and the Timber tile is quite large, we couldn't support that city any better than we could support the site proposed in this poll. IMHO we need to do a lot more recon in that area and take out the southern Austrian cities first, before we can even consider settling in that region.

If there are only 1 or 2 sites worth settling, those cities will be more of a burden than a benefit, but if there's room for at least 3 or 4 good cities (in terms of science, trade & growth - high production there is a waist until we get railroad) it could become an interesting option...

Pedrunn,
I know you can have Forts underneath cities, so I'm guessing trade goods will be fine as well.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 20, 2003, 11:37

afaik trade goods aren't removed by cities. unfortunately they are by cityexpansions, but we don't play with them.

Pedrunn · March 20, 2003, 11:58

Yep it isnt removed you guys are right just tested. So buildong it in the potato is a good idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
afaik trade goods aren't removed by cities. unfortunately they are by cityexpansions, but we don't play with them.

Nobody never told me that. It can be easily fixed. I think.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 20, 2003, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Yep it isnt removed you guys are right just tested. So buildong it in the potato is a good idea.

Nobody never told me that. It can be easily fixed. I think.

well, i just found out a few days ago when playtesting cradle 1.35 with a couple of changes.