Slow city, yeah. Can we double-whip into a worker and keep the capital at size 2 for a bit, so the new city works plains cow. We tech fishing next after archery and build a WB at city 2.
|
[Spoilers] Finding OH: wetbandit and ipecac encounter some sharks
|
|
Whipped and moved the warrior closer to the hill. We have 25 OF, which is conveniently an archer or a long way to a worker. I think we shoudl make an archer. It would make that OT4e border city very safe. Grow the cap to 3 and have it build a worker then.
Moving the settlor to OT4E side. This turned out to be a Good Thing because we no longer have a Stardoor eastern option.
 This is a concerning city spot for more than just the obvious "it's 5 tiles away from our capital insofar as Stardoor understands that hill location behind a river is a very defensible city spot. I really hope that OT4e doesn't appear out of the fog with a settlor in the next 2 turns. Our scout continues to find fertile land.  Edit: I did switch from the cow to the wheat, so we grow in 3.
That's not even funny. There's no place for a buffer city at all between our capital and Stardoor #2. What's worse is that they're still spending max EPs on us, so chances are that we're the guy in the middle.
On the 'bright' side most of our cities are going to be in the south anyway so if we get screwed by our neighbours at least we'll get a free palace down south.
Send archer east?
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
I don't think sending the archer east accomplishes much. It will take 4 turns to be in position to attack the city, and then it will have to attack over the river. Waiting another turn allows him to get another warrior. On top of that, a warrior in a hill city with any sort of fort bonus will have better odds. Plus he'll see us coming.
I think it is better to move west. The settler is on the cow now. I moved the warrior to see if he is anywhere close and thankfully he is not. This does give us the possibility of settling the "better" long term spot, but it is flatland and tough to defend.   Awesome demos  
Bear!
 We get one free win on Prince, right?  I propose trying to settle on this Copper next. It's a long shot given that it is mutually exclusive with the 'Holy Lighthouse' spot, but it'll be a coup if we can get it.
Your "why aren't we creative" sign made me wonder: on lush maps like this and PBEM74, does the value of free culture go up or down compared to more natural maps? In this situation, you have two sites each claiming 2 food resources first-ring, or one site that claims 3 food resources in all, 2 of them second-ring. On a standard BTS script, you might only be able to claim 1 food resource and share another without CRE, or claim 2 second-ring with CRE.
One could argue that the higher-quality land makes the snowball stronger, but alternately, a much stronger 2nd city on a map with lower-quality land could lead to a much faster opening than a non-CRE opening. And when it comes to using CRE to contest early borders, higher-quality land means that you're better off overall, but the other player can probably settle a comparably lush site elsewhere, whereas lower-quality land means that the opposing settler might be forced to settle a filler site instead. If we imagine a map where every tile has a resource, and another map where there are no resources at all, CRE feels pretty bad in both cases, but for different reasons. In Lushworld, every city can work 8 strong tiles immediately, and everyone would ICS, including the CRE player. In Barrenworld, with its extremely weak commerce potential, claiming more land would take too long to pay off. I would lean towards favoring CRE on more barren maps, but I can't really imagine a non-gimmicky map where everyone would heavily prioritize CRE over the other traits. |
