1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Town Square / Dgame Archive / Third City Placement Discussion / Latest Posts

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

grandgeneral — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:44:29 GMT

i agree with comedy dave on placing the new city in between the tw hills between the two spots

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Zigeuner — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:23:53 GMT

That was to be expected, you wanting to stick to your old plan as much as possible. I'm very skeptical though of knowingly building cities on top of resources, and believe that no senate would ever approve that.

[quote]We do have sailing... C.S.S. Doomed is currently off the coast of France. The proposed Open Borders agreement with France in the Senate is to keep from being blocked in.[/quote]Heh, perhaps I should have a look at the .sav myself sometime... :P

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:47:56 GMT

[quote][b]Zigeuner (7/3/2007)[/b][hr]As for planning far ahead, it might give some consolation, but future politicians are in no way bound by such. Having said that, I'm more than willing to work together with TORA and come up with a blueprint. We don't seem to be in a hurry though, so 2-3 weeks sounds more fitting.[/quote]

I'd pretty much put forth the same placements as before, I think only of them needs to move with the placement of the 3rd city.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

mongoose201 — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:06:35 GMT

We do have sailing... C.S.S. Doomed is currently off the coast of France. The proposed Open Borders agreement with France in the Senate is to keep from being blocked in.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Zigeuner — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:31:36 GMT

The peninsula is very close to Paris, so a couple cities from now it will probably have been claimed. It's a good idea though to establish a foothold... somewhere off the isle. I'm a bit wary of ending up in a peaceful game, where all we do is pump resources in halfbaked cities to keep them going until industrial times, when finally they *may* become productive. I'd much rather see a dozen knights tear up a lesser rival.

We don't have sailing yet. You can download the .sav from [url=http://1bcciv.com/Topic2239404-92-1.aspx]the executive report[/url], if you want to check in more detail.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

swordinthestorm — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:13:38 GMT

your probably right with the time scale of 2-3 weeks and that these can be ignored by future rulers but at the same time it could save numerous votes or polls if these city plans were drawn up at this early stage.

also if i was playing this myself, i would think my 5th or 6th city would be definatly on the continant to the east of the island with a city of mine just across the water. This is a personal preferance, but to achieve this expansion east not south is nessisary. from looking at the map i ca see that the continant to the east has a penninsula that could be colonized. i dont feel its too early in a game to do this as it can be alot more difficult and very expensive to do later on.

although thinking about it, i have no idea what the tech level is, has sailing been invented? i feel i could be a bit over zelous

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Zigeuner — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:14:28 GMT

Hi sword, we have an open immigration policy going, so everyone is allowed to participate right away. But what's this? You want us to work together?! That's simply unheard of...

I think the AI is not at its best in naval matters, and that ships are a secondary concern. It was my fear that starting mediocre coastal cities at this point would be a drain on our civilization for many many centuries. I've had similar cities and everything just takes too damn long. A third city should be able to contribute quickly and significantly. Perhaps for a fifth or sixth city the coastal spot would have done, but for a third one, no thank you.

As for planning far ahead, it might give some consolation, but future politicians are in no way bound by such. Having said that, I'm more than willing to work together with TORA and come up with a blueprint. We don't seem to be in a hurry though, so 2-3 weeks sounds more fitting.

Anyway, welcome to the isle.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

swordinthestorm — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:10:09 GMT

i have applied to join in the sign up forum but im not sure if i have to recieve a response to confirm before i can post in this disscusion. I'll post anyway through ignorance. The arguments (except the real ones) for both cities are very persuading and im sure that the vote has been had and the city built. All id like to say was that you have a full map of the island and somebody posted it with sites for all cities to fit on it. I think rather than Choose each site individually for its merits the senate should set up a temperary planning bored of the most heated debating members. These have a time frame of 2-3 days to disscuss and return with a complete plan for the island aswell as stratiegicly place ports on the adjacent continents.

The Planning bored should use all the availible resources leaving as few squares unused as possible. Have a realistic plan as to the order that theya are built. This arguing over gems and copper is fruitless, unless your going to allow another civ on the island, they'll be yours anyway. And coming from and island nation myself i know costal cities are a natural choice for stratiegic defence and national security.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Comedy Dave — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:18:48 GMT

[quote]Comedy Dave truely gets my vote next time around as he has shown true willingness to listen to differing opinions in this matter. You actually can change the hearts and minds of some of our politicians.[/quote]

Thanks Jerm :)

EDIT: Woohoo! - Post 2000 :)

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Mr. G — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:08:59 GMT

I yield any floor I had to stand on, this is out of my league as of right now.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

psweetman1590 — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:26:05 GMT

Some of them. ;)

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

tones — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:10:52 GMT

Politicians have hearts? AND minds?:w00t:

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

jerm — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:29:51 GMT

Comedy Dave truely gets my vote next time around as he has shown true willingness to listen to differing opinions in this matter. You actually can change the hearts and minds of some of our politicians. :D

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

mongoose201 — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:19:17 GMT

And yellow it is... if the senate ratifies it, that is.

Red was the winner in the unofficial poll 5-4, but that's why it's an unofficial poll I guess. In either case, once the senate ratifies, I'll post a continued play request and we'll get this show on the road.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:12:22 GMT

This is comedy, guys!

I vote for the blue tile! :w00t:

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Comedy Dave — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:03:54 GMT

After all this discussion, i'm leaning back towards the yellow... if I had to choose between the two X's

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

jerm — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:22:36 GMT

Let's all take a deep breath and chill. TORA, no one on THIS site is calling you a liar. I do see your point about the coastal city. That said, I believe the benefits of the yellow site outweigh the benefits of the red. As others have pointed out, the commerce from the yellow will be better in the long term as you can't build cottages on the ocean. The food output will be better because you can't build farms on the ocean. The production is better because of the copper and 3 hills (forests are the same). The final kicker is that this will not be a high maintanance city because of it's proximity to the capitol. Don't we want such a city to have a high gold yield? As Scipio stated, there are other possibilities for coastal cities, none of which are great. I think we've discussed this thing to death. Can we just put this thing up for a vote among the senators?

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Zigeuner — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:36:10 GMT

That's the second time you mention that, TORA, who was it then that called you a liar? I only recall that I proclaimed myself a disbeliever of one of your assertions, and invited you to make a believer out of me. You're jumping at shadows, but you're not using a Hidden Nationality unit so you'll never get rid of them this way.[/FfH2 reference]

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

tones — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:14:00 GMT

Och, the Celts always were an argumentative lot.

What a pity vC isn't around to hand out "The Judicial Clubs of Deciding Serious Issues Between Two Parties"

With my VAST experience of YEARS of 'misspent-play-when-I-should've-been-doing-something-more-productive' I will be voting for yellow, second choice orange.

That's what the runes said anyway.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:21:30 GMT

In the case of this red x and yellow x city, I do see the point of both sides. The yellow (the one inland by the river) will be a better city overall. It will be able to work more bonus tiles.

The red is coastal and will allow for naval construction. Admittedly, we do not seem to have many good coastal city sites on this island, but I think a mediocre coastal site can be found elsewhere where it does not interfere with a quite good site like the yellow.

For that matter, I tend to think Bibracte can provide all the naval power we need.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:03:48 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]Its just a game guys, and none of us are so expert that we cannot benefit from the suggestions or comments of the others. But then, we should also be receptive to the insights of others, and also to the sentiment of the majority.[/quote]
Agreed! And its one thing to suggest something else and or disagree, but another to say someone is lying.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Zigeuner — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:13:26 GMT

One man's vision is another man's blindness. :P

Perhaps TORA is taking my prodding a bit too seriously. As I mentioned before, I've finished around a dozen civ4 games now, and am here to learn. It's just that I require a little more than cryptic insinuations to get that happy learning feeling. I'm quite content with practically all my suggestions having been ignored, and can only hope that it will not be long before TORA can be similarly content. :)

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:47:16 GMT

Its just a game guys, and none of us are so expert that we cannot benefit from the suggestions or comments of the others. But then, we should also be receptive to the insights of others, and also to the sentiment of the majority.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Terminal_Civ-er — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:15:03 GMT

Me thinks I be not the only madman here. Arg! I say swords at 40 paces!

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

mongoose201 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:52:01 GMT

OK, everybody... Let's take a couple steps back...

Obviously, there is quite a bit of animosity flowing around, and I'm pretty sure a good deal of it has nothing to do with our situation here.

I'm not really sure about what's gone on in the past with some of you guys (And I don't really care to, there is enough drama here), but 1bc is not going to be the battleground for fights brought here from other sites.

Now, as to what's going on here, I'm not going to deal with it in the open. Perhaps I was wrong to call out Tora the way I did about his reply to Zig, perhaps not, but in either case, I'm going to be sending out pm's later tonight. This is not going to continue in this fashion.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:48:49 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]And meanwhile you ignore the first and more important part of my post. Seriously, it seems quite dodgy that you avoid so many questions this way.[/quote]
Mayhap I'm just getting sick of repeating myself. I have from the beginning said: [quote][b]TORARADICAL (6/21/2007)[/b][hr]All but 2 are coastal, no overlap, and only a very few areas of land that won't be directly used (but will be easily covered by cultural boundaries.[/quote]

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:14:07 GMT

And meanwhile you ignore the first and more important part of my post. Seriously, it seems quite dodgy that you avoid so many questions this way.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:56:27 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]

I advise that you lose the hostile and defensive edge here. We're playing a game that happens to involve a large amount of discussion, and you seem to be taking offense at someone wanting to discuss the wisdom of what you put forth.[/quote]
And I would suggest you and others lose the hostile and offensive edge.
I've never taken offense to discussing anything. I do however take offense at the way certain members blatantly are hostile to anything I should suggest. I have ignored being called a liar and other things, and have continued to give constructive advice and suggestions, unlike some I could mention who seem bent on disruption.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:35:50 GMT

[quote]but when I look at it I cannot help but wonder why we would build not one but *two* towns on top of cattle. Perhaps in your many games you have seen special benefits to this, benefits that more casual players have not discovered yet. Please, do share your insights and let us bask in your radiance.[/quote]

As in, "why should we build two towns on top of cattle?" And, "Are there any special benefits to doing so?"

I advise that you lose the hostile and defensive edge here. We're playing a game that happens to involve a large amount of discussion, and you seem to be taking offense at someone wanting to discuss the wisdom of what you put forth.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:13:33 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]It was an implied question. As if you needed to be told....:Whistling:[/quote]
I see nothing but some person attempting to mock me.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:06:19 GMT

It was an implied question. As if you needed to be told....:Whistling:

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:00:08 GMT

[quote][b]psweetman1590 (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]Well, how about responding to his question, TOR?...:w00t:[/quote]
I saw no question in his statement. Does anyone see a "?" in it?

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

psweetman1590 — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:43:16 GMT

Well, how about responding to his question, TOR?...:w00t:

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:36:36 GMT

[quote][b]Zigeuner (6/27/2007)[/b][hr]
You seem to be a little hung up on your proposed city placement, TORA,[/quote]

I took much thought in them, and believe in them. Should I not stick up for them?
Heavens forbid that someone disagree with the ever mighty Zig:doze:

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Zigeuner — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:52:10 GMT

Cool heads make cool judges... :P

[img]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9122/proposedcityplacementzp9.jpg[/img]

You seem to be a little hung up on your proposed city placement, TORA, but when I look at it I cannot help but wonder why we would build not one but *two* towns on top of cattle. Perhaps in your many games you have seen special benefits to this, benefits that more casual players have not discovered yet. Please, do share your insights and let us bask in your radiance. It is truly an honor to finally have a good player participate in our little set up here. :D

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:14:37 GMT

The only way that red X is mediocre, is that built up the right way it would have food, commerce, and production in equal measures.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:06:09 GMT

[quote][b]Zigeuner (6/26/2007)[/b][hr]Heh, we won't get to build even TWO ships in that city. It has nothing, no food, no production, it's a disaster, I've never seen such a shabby location for a third city...[/fade][/quote]

Having actually LOOKED at the map in the poll thread, I think Zig is correct. It is a damn shame, cause it is true we need good coastal cities. But I tend to think in this game that one VERY good coastal city is worth three mediocre coastal cities. Bibracte is a very VERY good coastal city, and maybe there is at least one other slot for another one out there somewhere?

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

TORARADICAL — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:04:10 GMT

I see way too much talk aboot now, now, now.
Y'all need to start thinking aboot the big long term picture. We have that advantage, we should use it.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

jerm — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:29:46 GMT

I think he was also refering to growth time. Yellow can grow quicker than Red as well as sustain that growth. This would actually make yellow a commerce powerhouse faster than red. Sure a forge will be useful but it takes a while to build when you don't have a lot of production to begin with and the fact that it only adds 25% production bonus. Lumber mills and factories are a long way off as well. There will be other opportunities for coastal cities. The third city should be first and foremost a strong, growing city. Coastal is secondary.

RE: Third City Placement Discussion

mongoose201 — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:53:12 GMT

[quote][b]TORARADICAL (6/26/2007)[/b][hr]Wow you are clearly blind.[/quote]

I don't think this comment helps us at all.

I'm not going to speak for Zig, but I believe his comment on production was in comparison to the other location. If I am wrong about this, then a thousand pardons, but please let's not make statements like this about other members. It does no one any good and gives off a very bad "vibe" for lack of a better word.