Unoffical: Which options would you support for Seti?

joncnunn · January 9, 2003, 18:59

I think I listed all options I heard of and they are self expanatory, but left Other in case any more choices come up.

Please check mark every selection which you would vote Yes if such a Bill were introduced.

Thud · January 9, 2003, 20:58

Patience is a virtue. Keep him around. Secondary: Build an army.

roadcage · January 9, 2003, 23:43

For those with short memories, "Old" Avignon is know called Los Alamos.

Arnelos · January 10, 2003, 01:30

I wouldn't mind keeping him around. There are some wonders in the rather immediate future which would be pretty nice to rush.

That said, there are other things to do with him (army, small wonders, etc.).

Whatever we do, we should NOT rush the palace ANYWHERE - the palace should stay in Apolyton. We're so close to ending the game and any palace move will only serve to raise corruption in one area and reduce it in another ... it's going to be near pointless. This is ABOVE AND BEYOND the concern that the GL is better spent rushing wonders or creating armies AND that we should keep Apolyton our capital so near the end of the game!

Aro · January 10, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos

Whatever we do, we should NOT rush the palace ANYWHERE - the palace should stay in Apolyton. We're so close to ending the game and any palace move will only serve to raise corruption in one area and reduce it in another ... it's going to be near pointless. This is ABOVE AND BEYOND the concern that the GL is better spent rushing wonders or creating armies AND that we should keep Apolyton our capital so near the end of the game!

Completely agreed.

Panag · January 10, 2003, 17:04

hi ,

wall street or an army for future use , ......

have a nice day

CiverDan · January 11, 2003, 09:06

Whatever we do, we should NOT rush the palace ANYWHERE - the palace should stay in Apolyton. We're so close to ending the game and any palace move will only serve to raise corruption in one area and reduce it in another ... it's going to be near pointless. This is ABOVE AND BEYOND the concern that the GL is better spent rushing wonders or creating armies AND that we should keep Apolyton our capital so near the end of the game! [/QUOTE]

At the expense of wasting (currently) half the shields of ferropolis? True a police station would help some, but we need the city to be as corruption free as possible to assist in building high-cost items such as armies and/or wonders. If the current Palace location is kept, Ferropolis will operating at 50% of its capability until a police station is built. Even then, it will always lose 25% to waste. Yes even for large jobs (like armies) we are only talking about shaving 1 turn off completion time, but that one turn, after 4 or 5 jobs, means one additional big (non-rushable) job than if the Palace had not been moved. This fact and the fact the Apolytonia would now have more cities Palace and FP centric (especially in Old France). Also Moving the Palace with lower our modified OCN value for corruption as their will be less overlap between our Palace and FP.

roadcage · January 11, 2003, 10:35

Thank you Civer Dan. Yes shields matter.

And yes Arneleos, a Palace move effectively changes WHICH cities are productive.

And that is it in a nutshell. Moving the Palace near to Ferropolis and the "Cities by the hills" of old France, makes a shield rich hill region productive at the expense of a shield poor region of jungle, coast and sea.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)