Ministry of Imperial Expansion - 2590 BC - Page 2

Harovan · June 30, 2002, 15:27

Spiffor: Apolyton is doomed anyway and can't remain our capital on the long term. This would be extremely unproductive. The capital has to be surrounded by cities to take full advantage from the low corruption. This is impossible with Apolyton and the capital has to be moved anyway, so its long-term efficiency doesn't much matter.

EDIT: Besides, smaller cities are all but unproductive. There are a couple of good threads about city spacing in the strategy forum. Tighter packing gives smaller, happier, less polluting cities, which save a lot of money on happiness improvements, hospitals and pollution cleaning facilities.

Spiffor · July 1, 2002, 05:05

Even if Apolyton won't remain our capital for all eternity (which will be decided by the people), its spot remains great, and will be valuable in the future : grasslands, fish, whales, and maybe a resource make this spot excellent for any city, capital or not.

Papa Chubby · July 1, 2002, 06:14

Do we have the time to spend our effort into building cities that we have no intention of letting remain. I´m guessing that once red city has lost the short-term usefulness of providing us with archers we will abandon it in favor of Settlers and workers.

Nym · July 1, 2002, 07:45

I do not like overlapping, but as it maximises use of grassland and lowers corruption, I would vote both considering our particular situation.

Harovan · July 1, 2002, 07:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Even if Apolyton won't remain our capital for all eternity (which will be decided by the people), its spot remains great, and will be valuable in the future : grasslands, fish, whales, and maybe a resource make this spot excellent for any city, capital or not.

Apolytons position is all but good. While it may be acceptable in the beginning (food), on the long term this city site is mediocre. It has not enough shield producing tiles and fish and whales are not that good in Civ3 (like whales in Civ2 are). It probably won't even give enough shields to build a factory in a reasonable time. The grassland has only one possible resource (horses), which quickly becomes obsolete. The chance that the 2 forest tiles yield coal is minimal, much less than the tiles in the vast junge we are expanding to. And if we move the capital to France, corruption will cut in the small amount of shields the city produces.

Harovan · July 1, 2002, 08:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Papa Chubby
Do we have the time to spend our effort into building cities that we have no intention of letting remain. I´m guessing that once red city has lost the short-term usefulness of providing us with archers we will abandon it in favor of Settlers and workers.

I have a question. How are the cities located in Iceland? Evenly, or tightly packed only in the habitable parts? Did they already lose their "short term usefulness"? Maybe the Icelandic government should disband these cities and build more on volcano sites?

Just kidding.

GodKing · July 1, 2002, 09:19

If pink is to work (and it appears that that is our direction) than place red and modified blue as indicated. Once we have another city on the river (assuming france doesn't beat us there) then consider disbanding red once conflic between them ensues, in the mean time keep it as a settler/worker factory.

How will it effect pink if instead of the first 2 archers we build another worker or two to start a road toward france? Then build the archers.

PS congrats on the election, Jonny.

Harovan · July 1, 2002, 09:42

That doesn't give any benefit for now, as in the same time a worker roads 3 tiles (which would save 2 turns to go for the archer), an archer runs 17. If we delay Case Pink this way, we might face pikemen or musketeers in Paris.

Kuciwalker · July 1, 2002, 12:30

Comparing civ to the real world is wasted effort. Despite the work put into it, Civ3 is vastly different.