Dot mapping

[novice]

If we're settling a city on the lake's southwest coast, I like Zak's suggestion of S-SW of the clams the best. I don't like leaving GM and TH exposed, so maybe we should settle such a city. If we do, better to do it sooner rather than later.

[fluffyflyingpig]

Surely we have something better we can settle next. These are marginal filler locations to be added later. How about the wheat/cow spot?

[Tyrmith]

Surely we have something better we can settle next. These are marginal filler locations to be added later. How about the wheat/cow spot?

The actual land we're grabbing is irrelevent, is about making sure CivPlayers does get an easy invitation to invade easy whenever they feel like it.

Since we're so concerned about how terrible this city will be what will it actually cost us in economic terms? Is it ever going to break even on a turn to turn basis?

[kjn]

If we let CivPlayers settle a city on the southwest shore, only so we can capture it later, then we cede the entire initiative to them, we will be forced to defend on a far longer front, and have to toss hammers into the sea.

As I see it we have three options:

1) we settle a crappy border city to claim that area and shield Gourmet Menu, Seven Tribes, and Horse Feathers
2) we make it a requirement in our NAP treaty with CivPlayers that they are not to settle a city on the southwest shore
3) we allow CivPlayers to establish a presence there, with the salient result described above

[SevenSpirits]

Someone tell me how having a city SW of clams even helps us defensively, because as far as I can tell they can just run past it on the south side and fork 3 cities instead of 2.

If it did help defensively, I would be OK with settling that city in about 20 turns. Right now, whipping 3 pop off of gourmet menu to found a city that will never pay for itself economically seems absurd. It literally claims four grassland tiles. And since they are on the border we'd have to farm them.

Regarding civplayers themselves settling the area, I can't even find a single spot on the map that would be as dumb for us to settle as that spot is for them to settle.

[Sian]

I'd much rather have a crappy city that at best can help GM and ST getting mature cottages and act as a defensive point, than having to fill the lake with boats and defend several cities from forks and the like

I'll pick door number 1

[zakalwe]

I'd much rather have a crappy city that at best can help GM and ST getting mature cottages and act as a defensive point, than having to fill the lake with boats and defend several cities from forks and the like

I'll pick door number 1

I think that's a false dichotomy. Like Seven says, the chances that they will settle there even if we don't are slim.

[novice]

Maybe we can finally settle that double-food river valley towards WPC instead, then?

[SevenSpirits]

That sounds much better to me. Where would that city go, exactly?

[Sian]

if we can get to an argeement with CP that the lake is our domain and they won't push further towards it, that could work ... but we'd still have to keep an eye out for shenanigans