City Planner's Tentative Plan

CannonFodder · August 6, 2003, 20:44

Well, having reviewed the save and looked at what our cities are building, I have built a tentative plan on how to proceed. Right now we don't seem to have much of a long-term plan, so I have put emphasis on building up more cities for Xinning. However, none of this is set in stone, and I think it's important for the President and the Military Advisor to have input. Anyhow, most cities would continue producing what they currently are, with emphasis on building up population. Others will concentrate on building Settlers and developing the surrounding terrain. Yet others I will leave up to the President to decide on.

cavebear · August 6, 2003, 21:43

First, I plead that you look at our cities to determine which can suppoort units at no additional cost. Antium, Veii, and Cumae, for example, can support more without shield cost. Please recommend that the units there be converted to "support from this city" where they do not exceed 3 units.

I notice the current build schedule only includes 1 offensive unit. I think we need more. I fully support defending our cities well with Pikemen and such, but we will not conquer the Romans (our immediate target) without some more Crusaders and Knights.

I note that some cities can support additional minitary units without shield-cost.

1. Veii can support 2 more units
2. Antium can support 1 more unit
3. Ore can support 2 beyond the one being built
4. New Apolalyps 1 beyond the one being built
5. Misery can support 1 more unit

Further, I note that we have 2 warriors. I think those should be disbanded for their shield value when advantageous. The shield cost of them for 5 turns exceeds their defensive value. We should not be afraid to trade-up units.

I think that covers my concerns for now.

cavebear · August 6, 2003, 21:46

I will add that we should need to know what "President's Discretion" includes. Surely there should at least be some suggested path for the cities to follow. Marketplaces perhaps? Military Units? Let's give our President some recommendations, at least.

CannonFodder · August 6, 2003, 22:17

My reccomendation for "President's Discretion" was going to be military/espionage/exploration units.

The rest seems perfectly reasonable, and I will take support and the Roman campaign into further consideration. Note, however, that Antium's xinning is needed to keep our tax income at a decent level.

cavebear · August 6, 2003, 22:32

The Xinning decisions I happily leave up to the President and the City-Planner. I'm only suggesting places where military units can be produced without addition shield cost.

CannonFodder · August 6, 2003, 23:04

Would the War Ministry rather have Crusaders, Knights, or something else for offense?

Six Thousand Year Old Man · August 7, 2003, 01:39

When you say you want to build up our cities... once a city gets to size 4, 3 units + Temple will keep order, but size 5+ will require either a specialist or a Colosseum/Cathedral. And of course, if 3 units are needed to keep order, there is no more free support for units in the field.

Also, I still believe that we should choose between a max-cash approach or a max-science approach.

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 02:00

I'm not concentrating on building up cities that already have 5 pop, but rather building up cities that don't yet so that they can Xin and contribute to our science rate. As for max science or tax, I plan on recommending a rigorous science regime, but I will try to avoid a budget deficit.

Hydey · August 7, 2003, 06:33

I agree with the recomendations that the new minister of war, Cavebear ,has put forward.

MrWhereItsAt · August 7, 2003, 06:36

OK, so, trying to spark debate about a longer term plan, the science maximisation thing would mean that we would not have the cash for rushing units/buildings. This is fine with most cities anyway that either support the most units they can and for cities where buildings would not benefit without increased population, but can our shields by themselves keep up with our military needs? And what about the idea of diplomatic attacks/subversion/bribing NON units? Cash would be needed for that.

As I think on it now, once we get Explosives and RRs, what more tech do we need, so long as we have at least a par military tech with our main opponents? We have some science goals now, but not for all that long.

Hydey · August 7, 2003, 06:38

I think we should be maximising $$$$$$ and let our skilled diplomats keep techs of the other civs in our hands.

-Jrabbit · August 7, 2003, 09:40

Note to City Planning Ministry --

The Science Ministry would like to point out that, at current rates (from glancing at the save), we are making discoveries once every 27 turns.

We're currently about 2/3 of the way to Sanitation. Explosives and RR are many centuries away!

This is unacceptable. I favor a program of massive population growth and subsequent science xinning. With celebration, we can churn out some settlers and create needed transportation for both military and trade missions.

While I have great respect for our diplomatic corps, I cannot help but point out that their tech acquisitions are random, and having not established a single embassy, we have no idea what techs are available.

Let us maximize science in the near-term, in order to get the techs needed to implement our Master Plan!!

atomant · August 7, 2003, 11:50

Go raaaaabittttttt!!!!! Setterllers, science and x(s)ining......

Everything else is second place.

atawa · August 7, 2003, 12:54

Can the citizens get some more info (screenshots etc) on the city's involved?

Now its hard to tell what we're voting on.

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Note to City Planning Ministry --

The Science Ministry would like to point out that, at current rates (from glancing at the save), we are making discoveries once every 27 turns.

We're currently about 2/3 of the way to Sanitation. Explosives and RR are many centuries away!

This is unacceptable. I favor a program of massive population growth and subsequent science xinning. With celebration, we can churn out some settlers and create needed transportation for both military and trade missions.

While I have great respect for our diplomatic corps, I cannot help but point out that their tech acquisitions are random, and having not established a single embassy, we have no idea what techs are available.

Let us maximize science in the near-term, in order to get the techs needed to implement our Master Plan!!

That is absolutely the plan. Without a decent transportation system, it will take us forever to kill off the various civilizations. Many of the cities that I look to be xinning will be able to very soon, and I plan on suggesting that the President do so when possible.

Sparrowhawk · August 7, 2003, 14:02

I am not sure I follow all the posts in this thread, we seem to be talking together about a number of different issues.

One in particular I am commenting on is Xinning. Wasn't there a recent poll (in the last regime) that rather then adding settlers to cities to increase Xinning, we were to use settlers to found new cities? Surely the new City Planner isn't suggesting that we abandon that poll of the Citizens of Apolyton?

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 14:04

I'm not suggesting we use settlers to build up population in existing cities. Just that many cities are already close to being size 5 and we should immediately use them for xinning when it's possible to do so.

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I am not sure I follow all the posts in this thread, we seem to be talking together about a number of different issues.

I agree, this has become much more complex than I expected it to, most of these topics have little or nothing to do with my buildlist.

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 14:14

Here is the slightly modified new version of the buildlist. Hopefully this will address some of the SMC's concerns.

-Jrabbit · August 7, 2003, 15:08

Using settlers for growth only makes sense in non-representative gov'ts. In Democracy, you should celebrate to grow, and use it as an opportunity to build more settlers, to the food/shield limit of the city site.

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 16:02

I wasn't aware we were under a representative gov't.

Ben Kenobi · August 7, 2003, 17:19

JRabbit:

The whole purpose of this game is to forgo representative governments in favour of the more reprehensible Fundamentalism.

Cannonfodder:

Would it be more advantageous in the short term to crank up taxes so that we can increase the city infrastructure, and to bribe enemy cities with diplomats?
IMHO, this is the most important decision, to figure out what we will Xin for.

-Jrabbit · August 7, 2003, 17:48

obiwan -- When I D/L'd the save last night and glanced at it, I thought we were in Democracy. (I was in and out of several gamefiles, so could easily have been confused.)

Per my previous post, if we're in a non-representative gov't, using settlers to speed the otherwise-glacial growth from size 4 to xinnable size 5 is, perfectly viable.

Hydey · August 7, 2003, 18:38

we are a monarchy and Shade is our King

cavebear · August 7, 2003, 18:41

I agree with using some settlers to get some additional core cities to size 5 to give us greater flexibility and impact in Xinning. But the cities near our enemy civs should be left to focus on offensive military units.

CannonFodder · August 7, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cannonfodder:

Would it be more advantageous in the short term to crank up taxes so that we can increase the city infrastructure, and to bribe enemy cities with diplomats?
IMHO, this is the most important decision, to figure out what we will Xin for.

It might be advantageous in the short run, but I believe we would be doing ourselves a disservice in the long term. If we concentrate on science instead then we can reap the rewards of our new technology sooner rather than later.

cavebear · August 7, 2003, 21:12

Investment in a civ's infrastruture and tech always pays off in the long run. Just because we have deliberately forbidden ourselves some forms of investment doesn't mean we should not do our best to use those remaining to us.

Even as Minister of War this term, I am more concerned with the resources we need to achieve our final victory over our enemies than I am about the benefits for the next individual battle. I see one and only one goal - success by the end of the game!

-Jrabbit · August 8, 2003, 09:56

Spoken like an ex-President!

cavebear · August 8, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Spoken like an ex-President!

And possible future one...

Ben Kenobi · August 8, 2003, 15:10

Cavebear:

Success in the end term is often the result of a series of wise decisions made by the preceding ministers. So in concentrating on our immediate concerns, we can avoid many potential problems.

Cannonfodder:

I agree, I just wanted to hear your thoughts.