Posts: 3,140
Threads: 26
Joined: Feb 2009
Quote:Where does this idea of a better location for a second city come in?
PH plant, forested deer, plains cow. That is a great worker/settler pump city.
Posts: 12,335
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
40 turns in.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
Posts: 12,335
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
And how do you know that we won't discover something better for a second city? And how long will it take for that second city to get big enough to be a worker pump? And why can't we just get workers out of another city just as fast?
You're locking yourself into to something that you have no way of knowing will be the best or even viable by the time you get to it. IE: hamstringing yourself.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
Posts: 3,140
Threads: 26
Joined: Feb 2009
Lewwyn Wrote:40 turns in.
That's fair enough, but I disagree. Sometimes a long/medium term advantage does pay off over short term, and I think we'll still be producing enough settlers and workers 40t in that having a second city pretty much tailormade for the purpose will work better than getting a poorer second city in play 4t early.
Posts: 3,140
Threads: 26
Joined: Feb 2009
Quote:And how do you know that we won't discover something better for a second city?
Technically I don't. That place just looks by far the best of anything we can currently see for city 2, and it's hard to imagine there being a much better site around. Maybe I'm wrong...
Posts: 12,335
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
Selrahc Wrote:That's fair enough, but I disagree. Sometimes a long/medium term advantage does pay off over short term, and I think we'll still be producing enough settlers and workers 40t in that having a second city pretty much tailormade for the purpose will work better than getting a poorer second city in play 4t early.
And if your proposed second city has no horses or copper? Then, whoops we have to settle else where first and then the city gets pushed back, your plan gets pushed back and its still a waste.
I'm not saying not to think of good strategies and good places fro future cities but don't marry yourself to this idea that the capital can't be on the banana just because it would get in the way of a really cool idea for a second city.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
Settling on the bananas hardly blocks us off from the cows city. I call it the cows city because it only claims 1 new resource: the cows. It just means you can't settle on the plains hill, means we don't get the free +1h, but that's more than compensated by having free +1f from turn 0.
Also, I was wrong about that city making 4-turn workers, I forgot to calculate the cost of feeding the citizens . In any case, settling on a 2/1 flatland, working 3/3 cows and 5/1 deer, get's 12 food-hammer surplus, meaning 5-turn workers. Settling on a 2/2 plains hill gets 13 food-hammers, still making 5-turn workers (and we're going to lose that 1 overflow hammer to the EXP food bug anyway).
So not settling on the plains hill is fine for worker pump. The plains hill simply shouldn't factor into our decision in settling our capital.
Posts: 4,471
Threads: 65
Joined: Feb 2006
We do have a consensus emerging on a couple of important points
- It's correct to research pottery early in order to build cottages
- There's no rush to get BW from an economic point of view because we don't want to heavily whip the capital
To be honest I don't think the "more food now is always better" and "I'll happily delay growth by a few turns now to get a better capital in the medium term" philosophies are ever going to convince each other. I think it is a fundamental enough difference in people's approach to early game tradeoffs and there isn't enough map information to settle it scientifically, so there's really no point in us getting rhetorical about it. Might as well just settle the settling location by a vote now.
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
Lots of good discussion, and I'm happy to see multiple options being considered.
It does look like SOB has enough of a short term advantage to outweigh any (alleged) long term benefits from SIP. Earlier second city, more beakers, and an extra worker ready to quickly improve a second city.
I have to run.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Lord Parkin Wrote:I look at the Banana this way.
How many of you would settle on a plains-hill for +1 free hammer per turn from the start given the chance? Most, I presume. And yet this technically denies you 2 hammers later because you can't mine the hill. However, to most of us the immediate benefit is worth the later loss.
Given that 1 food > 1 hammer, how much more benefit is it to get +1 free food per turn from the start? A lot. Sure, it denies us 2 food later (much later) because we can't build the plantation. But the immediate benefit is still very much worth the later (much later) loss.
I like settling on the banana but you have some faulty premises. Settling on a plains hill does not cost you hammers later unless you would have been willing to work a 0/3/0 tile. (PH city working a 0/3/0 tile is equal to a normal city working a plains hill mine.) 0/3/0 tiles are utter crap so except it really unusual circumstances you aren't "denied 2 hammers later". Rather you get a less hammer-heavy but overall stronger city - it's a bit different but there's never a time period where a reasonable person would say it cost you anything. Settling on a banana actually does cost you food later.
The only relevant reason to settle in place is the good second city. Specifically it allows 2 cities to grab deer, cow, corn, 4 FP and another 4 yield tile (banana) while both getting a +1h plant. Banana city can't do this with the tiles we can see - there's no second city with cows, 2FP, +1h center and another 4 yield tile. However I favor settling on Banana (the obvious strong play) and looking for a good second city at the edge of the fog.
|