1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Senate Floor / Dgame Archive / 1st City / Latest Posts

RE: 1st City

Zone — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:04:34 GMT

I am loath to move that far south when we don't know if that position will grant many hammers. It is likely that there is plenty of forest down there. However to the East there is Jungle, it is also possible that the jungle extends into the South West.

RE: 1st City

jerm — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:33:13 GMT

My main concern is if the location to our south contains less preferable land. What if there is desert or tundra down there? Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of scouting out the entire area before settling. It would have been preferable if that scout were in a more favorable start position but he is not. We know what we got now, why jinx it?

With regards to second and third cities, well, I'd think it would work both ways. What if we actually give a northern rival more land to settle because we decided to move south? If we knew we were the northernmost civ, there would be some merrit but we know very little at the moment. I don't quite see the benefit of moving the settler for that reason or how the risk outweighs the benefits of settling on the first turn.

Addit: Hmm, actually after looking at the image which Mongoose has supplied of the scout's new location, it would appear if anything, we are in the southern hemisphere based on the "desert" way up north. Given that we are playing a large map (?), the fear of running into less favorable land is minimal. Gosh, now I'm a bit torn. Scipio, you should have voted no if you didn't agree with the start location.

RE: 1st City

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:02:02 GMT

I'll defer to whatever you guys want, but just for the record, I believe that the tile south of the river would be far better. We'd lose one turn to move down there (and a slight risk of some bad guy probably <0.1% chance of that), we'd get all the short-term benefits from our current location, all the long-term benefits of our current location, and have two known good additional city spots, versus wasting those known good city spots.

RE: 1st City

mongoose201 — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:29:15 GMT

After careful consideration, I don't think the early (possible) benefit of moving the settler outweighs the loss of turn and move from our current location. That of course, is up to the Senate to decide.

As far as naming. I will surrender city naming to the people (while making suggestions here and there, of course), if the people/Senate will give up the unofficial naming of units to the Presidency.

RE: 1st City

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:56:49 GMT

I don't really consider growth as much a issue as good surrounding land in this scenario. There's no reason to leave our current position because we can't make use of the silk either, early game. The gems and fish are what will sustain us in the early game... much more then extra grassland would. Which, really wouldn't be that much an issue, considering there's two fish tiles east of our location. I would also rather push for fishing, then pass up the entire location because we feel the food is lacking. If the need was so dire.. which I doubt it would be.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the above proposals Scipio. The long term outweights the short term in my book.

[QUOTE]That's a good point. Do we as a senate want to create such procedure or should we wait and see if such a thing is even needed. I for one, am not sure such an article is needed but if the citizenry wants a say in the naming of cities, I'd have no problem with it as long as it didn't hamper the progress of the game. Perhaps something could be created in the next so many turns which would give a list of city names either in order of how we'd like them to be used or that the president could use his discression in choosing from said list. Not really a vital thing though and I'm sure our president doesn't need to be compelled on this thing. [/QUOTE]

I would prefer if we drafted something that gave us more of a say on the naming of cities. However, if the current President would be willing to allow discussion on the issue before anything (with citizen involvement)... I would be willing to post-pone writing such legislation... in favor of more important legislation.

RE: 1st City

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:36:21 GMT

I do not think that this is a great starting location. But then, there is a definite dimishing return on spending the time to look around for a better one. What would a better location be you ask?

Well first of all, one with wild game in it. One of our starting techs is hunting. If we had a location with wild game, we could (by building a worker first thing) get a nice early growth boost. As it stands, there is not a single special resource in that start location that does not require that we first study an additional Tech. Specifically, if we research Fishing, then we could build a work boat. That would be a great asset, but it would mean a delay of many turns while we research the Tech to found a religion, then switch to Fishing, then after getting fishing done, build the work boat.

In the long run, our current position will provide a VERY strong city. But it will be a LONG time before we can take full advantage of all those special resources in our midst.

First of all, we do not have mining. Unless we forego Fishing, and the big boost to growth that will be critical to staying competitive in a Prince level game, taking advantage of those Gems is going to a long way off.

ADDIT: moreover, if we first go for mining and build one on one of those gem riverside grassland tiles, we will get a nice shields bonus on a two food tile, but this will not help in getting our population level up, which is the SINGLE MOST important factor in the early game. Who cares if you have a size 2 city with that produces 6 shields when you could have a size 4 city that produces 9 shields in the same span of time. Growing our population must be the number one priority for the early game, we need more people to provide commerce and get our second city produced asap.

Second the silk is pretty much worthless as far as early game goes. In short, given our starting Tech array this is a mediocre starting location. While the AI is founding its 3rd city we will just be getting up to 2 population! In the long-run this is a great location, but for the early game which is so critical for getting off to a good start this location is only mediocre at best.

Given all of this, I would ask the Senators to consider the merits of a couple of alternatives to building our first city immediately where we have started.

First, let us move our scout to look at the north BEFORE we even consider a starting location.

Second, let us at least CONSIDER two alternate starting locations:

A) two tiles south of where we are (i.e., immediately south of the river, a tile which appears to be grassland). This location would have ALL of the early game merits of the current location, but would also allow up to two additional cities to be built in decent starting locations, should we find that we are crowded in by rapidly growing AI.

In this southerly grassland tile, we would enjoy the health benefits of the river. The most southerly fish would be in our cultural boundary for early growth. The gems will be in there for mining later on. The forested tile north of the hill would be available for a city later on, and once our cultural boundary expands, we can chop that forest for some project in our capital, thus not wasting the lumber. This would also allow a city to be built on the most northwesterly hill tile giving us (with a lighthouse) a city that can grow to considerable size and moderate productivity. Note that, our current location would make these two build sites untenable as they are both within two tiles of the current settler location

B) the forest tile immediately north of the hill. Building here should only be considered if scouting revealed a wild game to the east which would be in our cultural boundary earlier if the capital were here. Puttting the first city here would waste the lumber which is a bad thing.

RE: 1st City

jerm — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:41:02 GMT

That's a good point. Do we as a senate want to create such procedure or should we wait and see if such a thing is even needed. I for one, am not sure such an article is needed but if the citizenry wants a say in the naming of cities, I'd have no problem with it as long as it didn't hamper the progress of the game. Perhaps something could be created in the next so many turns which would give a list of city names either in order of how we'd like them to be used or that the president could use his discression in choosing from said list. Not really a vital thing though and I'm sure our president doesn't need to be compelled on this thing.

RE: 1st City

von Clausewitz — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:31:01 GMT

The president needs to "present a request to the Senate, and have it approved by simple majority of the Senate, if he wishes to found a new settlement".

Now, if the Senate decides they want to include in the Articles of Law how naming of the Settlement is to happen then they need to do that.

RE: 1st City

Zone — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:10:06 GMT

I suspect this may well happen :)

RE: 1st City

jerm — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:30:21 GMT

I'm pretty sure that would fall under the president's discression. The constitution only states that he needs approval from the senate for placement of the city, not naming the city (unless I'm missing something). Still, it would be nice if the president asked what the people wanted :)

RE: 1st City

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:23:12 GMT

I don't think it's Presidential. It'll probably fall under the people's decision. Though, this might be something else the courts should clarify.

RE: 1st City

Zone — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:56:33 GMT

I was wondering about that, is it Presidential perogative?

RE: 1st City

Bismarck2990 — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:44:42 GMT

Agreed. I'm particularly keen on establishing our village where we are currently. The gems will do much for our early scientific development. Not to mention, the fish to the west are ideal if we plan on making use of the surrounding hills. I believe our best option on the table is to settle.

I'm looking forward to future discussions on names for our first village. :)

1st City

Zone — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:29:45 GMT

We may as well start the discussion here and now as our President will have to make the request to found our first city. There has already been considerable discussion on placement in [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2232861-92-1.aspx]this thread[/url] in which I have already said I would like to see the city placed where our settler currently resides. I assume it's up to our President to formally request a spot to place our city, but I believe he is of similar mind to me. Do any senators have other ideas?