Our starting position

MrWhereItsAt · April 14, 2003, 00:50

Well, here it is.

What do you think?

I will be back in a few hours (after hockey) to comment myself and to join the discussion.

shade · April 14, 2003, 06:42

There could be worse places to settle.

Shade

CannonFodder · April 14, 2003, 07:08

Hmm...no rivers near to it...

mrboo123 · April 14, 2003, 08:15

It ain't the best, but the other setter a HUGE bouns! We should keep it for improving the land!

MrWhereItsAt · April 14, 2003, 08:15

Personally I think we can get away with founding right there and sending the other settler elsewhere, after a road or three in the right place, which is almost as good as a river.

My only concern is that those mountains take significant time and effort to mine, and even then the resources from them, well, in plain colloquial English they suck.

mrboo123 · April 14, 2003, 08:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Personally I think we can get away with founding right there and sending the other settler elsewhere, after a road or three in the right place, which is almost as good as a river.

My only concern is that those mountains take significant time and effort to mine, and even then the resources from them, well, in plain colloquial English they suck.

You're right, I just want to keep the setter unitl engeeries come (but if we steal Leo's, keep it)

-Jrabbit · April 14, 2003, 09:07

1. I think both settlers should wander a bit before founding. No water for irrigation, no specials of any kind -- a BAD location for our capital.

2. Regarding the idea of keeping the 2nd settler -- We need cities, not roads and irrigation!!!

Find city site and build 2nd city ASAP. That's 2 more squares bieng worked -- way better than building infrastructure we can't use for thousands of years!

Holding onto an early settler just because it's NONE is a waste of resources!

cavebear · April 14, 2003, 09:13

I think this would make a good site for a production city, but would it make a good site for our Capital? I'm not used to playing without Caravans.

Well, the gold/grass will get us plenty of food/shield/trade, the forest will offer extra shields. It would be nice to have a Special or 2 in the city, though. Too many mountains here.

If we moved 1 tile North or NE, we would get rid of 2 Mountains, and we might expose a Special. I don't like having a Mountain next to a city, pesky enemies tend to show up on them.

MrWhereItsAt · April 14, 2003, 09:27

How far are we prepared to wander before founding a capital? Less than 3 turns? I do like the idea of getting one square away from the Mountains.

And without rivers, wouldn't a road or two be a dcent substitute? We don't need to road much, just a few squares for our capital to use whilst it is still pumping out settlers.

cavebear · April 14, 2003, 09:37

I don't think we should wander much at all. One square away from the Mountains should be enough. Let the 2nd Settler find a good spot for a 2nd city and then build a road back to the Capital. A couple of roads leading away from the Capital will really speed up future Settler movement.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · April 14, 2003, 10:42

I say we wander, see if we can pick up some huts - no risk of barbs and maybe we can grabs some NON units. At least find some water, ideally rivers or coastline.

There are no specials and no really decent terrain to speak of, here...science will be very slow in this location. Better to wander 2-3 turns at least, and put down 2 cities in better places.

And no - don't save the second settler.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · April 14, 2003, 10:53

To elaborate: Roads aren't needed yet. At this point, roads are 1 point of added trade, only. Better to move the settlers to a location with some natural trade - like a special(s), or a river, or fish or whales ideally...

If we build where we are now, that's only 1 beaker/turn... 2 with 2 roads. Whereas, if we build 2 cities on better terrain, we have 2 beakers/turn immediately on founding, at the very least.

Gramphos · April 14, 2003, 11:18

I think moving one settler Noth and see what's in the dark could be a good start. Then deciding where to move the second settler. (N or NE most likely)

cavebear · April 14, 2003, 11:40

We're not going to see many Whales or Fish on this land map unless there are lakes somewhere.

And the roads are mainly to speed new Settlers away from the Capital, since the plan seems to use it to pump out Settlers for a while. All those wasted moves across roadless terrain are murder.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · April 14, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
We're not going to see many Whales or Fish on this land map unless there are lakes somewhere.

And the roads are mainly to speed new Settlers away from the Capital, since the plan seems to use it to pump out Settlers for a while. All those wasted moves across roadless terrain are murder.

Well... one could equally say that using the second settler to build roads at 3 turns each (1 to move onto the square, 2 to build a road), when it could form a city and actually be doing research and building units, are wasted turns.

I'm not saying we don't need roads... we will, once we have 4-5 cities down and need to set up a mounted defence corps (horses/chariots/whatever). But in the very early game, roads seem to be a luxury we don't have time for.

H Tower · April 14, 2003, 11:46

i would move the first settler north, and the second settler east or west, probably east though.

atawa · April 14, 2003, 11:59

I agree with H-Tower, in 3 turns we should be able to find either a special or river this way.

On roads: I usualy only start to build them when the settler needs to pass another city to get to its settling spot. Then just build the road between the 2 city's, repaet this with the settler from the second city who builds a road to the third.....etc.

Gramphos · April 14, 2003, 13:52

H Towers plan is good, N and East, but I still thinks that the settler moving north should be moved before the other settlers direction gets set.

H Tower · April 14, 2003, 16:48

we're going to uncover only one more black tile, and I'm going to guess and say that it's another grassland tile.

Under those conditions, which way would you move the second settler?

cavebear · April 14, 2003, 17:59

Reveal the maximum unknown territory!

Hydey · April 14, 2003, 18:10

wander until we find a river or trade special and never even contemplate keeping the second settler, 2 settlers = 2 cities.

Ben Kenobi · April 14, 2003, 18:26

The only time you want to keep the second settler building city improvements is in an OCC.

Build the second city, and I approve of HTower's plan for exploration.

-Jrabbit · April 14, 2003, 18:51

One north, one east, sez I...

cavebear · April 14, 2003, 20:04

A NON Settler never needs support, and I consider that valuable. I'd love to keep him around forever; just think of the food and shields we'll save. Just leave him to build roads and such at no cost for the whole game and think of the savings.

I'd almost like to use both of them to search for huts and find new Settlers, but that probably doesn't work out over many trials.

MrWhereItsAt · April 14, 2003, 20:23

I take the point over a second city on good trade terrain (rivers), but what if we don't find one? A road serves us better than no road, and can we be certain there is a riveer within a few turns moves? At least it seems agreed to move the first settler north a tile.

This begs the question - how far do I go with the next moves? I could just move the settler north today and repost the situation. There is nothing else to decide upon, so for these first few turns I could do them every day or so until we get to the point that we know what we're doing for a while.

H Tower · April 14, 2003, 20:42

sounds good to me, a turn or two a day until things get cracking

Bob_Smurf42 · April 14, 2003, 21:00

I say we should go N and see what's there. Then probably W. Looking at the mountain/forest patterns, it would appear that the mountains continue S, and the forest goes N and S, only as wide as the mountain range. I'd have to consult my terrain2.gif to be sure, but I'd rather not. Not sure if that info means anything, just an observation. I would definatly build two cities right away, just probably not here.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · April 14, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear

I'd almost like to use both of them to search for huts and find new Settlers, but that probably doesn't work out over many trials.

You won't find any Settlers in huts if you still have a NON Settler active on the same continent... and you won't find any advanced Tribes until you place a city. That was demonstrated by solo, IIRC.

OTOH, you won't find any barbarians in huts either until you found city #1... so if we go hut hunting, we're quite likely to get NON units. I say explore until we find a decent starting spot - a special or 2, maybe a river, and hopefully we find a hut and get a faster explorer from it.

rjmatsleepers · April 15, 2003, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

This begs the question - how far do I go with the next moves? I could just move the settler north today and repost the situation. There is nothing else to decide upon, so for these first few turns I could do them every day or so until we get to the point that we know what we're doing for a while.

Hey - you're the president Play us through a thousand years or so in a session. If you get it wrong, we can just replace you with a banana at the end of the month.

RJM at Sleepers

MrWhereItsAt · April 15, 2003, 03:27

Alrighty - am moving one settler north, then reposting the screenie.