Dot mapping

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I think I'd prefer Novice's blue dot location over the SW area, but we may want the settler from somewhere a lot closer to the NE region. I still think we can come to a diplomatic solution in the SW that won't economically hurt either us or CivPlayers. If they were to breach a no-settling agreement for the area, it would take some time for that city to develop sufficiently to cause us harm, and in that interim we could build a force to remove the offending city.

[Tyrmith]

I don't understand after all the random freaking out we've done over CFC, that suddenly we care so much about "wasting" a settler on a crappy city. It's not even like we're racing someone for other spots elsewhere. CFC wants to be friends with us for the foreseeable future, and we have a secure border with them. CivPlayer's on the other hand has no reason to be friendly with us (and apparently isn't interested in a long term relationship considering the terms of the NAP), and apparently doesn't trust us either considering the whipping that Kjn is seeing. It's a crappy city. Oh well, can't win em all. But it's far better to be able to know how CivPlayer's will have to invade us and to be prepared for it. If we don't settle the city it's not like we won't have to invest tons of resources anyway on providing extra defense due to being more exposed. I feel like we're saving a $1 now for the cost of $75 later on down the road when we'll wanting to have our army on the other side of the map gobbling up the germans and wpc.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I don't understand after all the random freaking out we've done over CFC, that suddenly we care so much about "wasting" a settler on a crappy city. It's not even like we're racing someone for other spots elsewhere. CFC wants to be friends with us for the foreseeable future, and we have a secure border with them. CivPlayer's on the other hand has no reason to be friendly with us (and apparently isn't interested in a long term relationship considering the terms of the NAP), and apparently doesn't trust us either considering the whipping that Kjn is seeing. It's a crappy city. Oh well, can't win em all. But it's far better to be able to know how CivPlayer's will have to invade us and to be prepared for it. If we don't settle the city it's not like we won't have to invest tons of resources anyway on providing extra defense due to being more exposed. I feel like we're saving a $1 now for the cost of $75 later on down the road when we'll wanting to have our army on the other side of the map gobbling up the germans and wpc.

I think I missed the point in this. The difference with CFC is a longstanding diplomatic relationship at risk over a location that could be interpreted by both parties as being within the sphere of influence of either party. That location is of far more economic value than any location available in the southwest. Two food resources and slavery is easily a worthwhile investment. Stone ups the ante for CFC, but we can work out that issue diplomatically.

It isn't just the waste of the settler, either. It is the associate cost of the increased maintenance empire wide, as well as the cost of the city itself, which must then be garrisoned, and infrastructure built. It is a net negative on the rest of our empire. Does it serve a useful purpose? Yes, if it should become necessary to go to war with CivPlayers. Otherwise it's a waste of time. We cannot be certain that we won't war, and thus that we would not have had a need of that city. But, I think that city becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that if we build it, we assume the coming of war and have done something to ensure that it happens by planting "aggressively" on CivPlayers' border. We would not kindly respond to a city planted "in our face" that served no purpose other than blocking our opponent. If diplomatic efforts break down, we can throw a city down there. I'm just in no hurry to do it.

[Fintourist]

But, I think that city becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that if we build it, we assume the coming of war and have done something to ensure that it happens by planting "aggressively" on CivPlayers' border.

I agree very much. This exactly is my worry too.

[Tyrmith]

It isn't just the waste of the settler, either. It is the associate cost of the increased maintenance empire wide, as well as the cost of the city itself, which must then be garrisoned, and infrastructure built. It is a net negative on the rest of our empire. Does it serve a useful purpose? Yes, if it should become necessary to go to war with CivPlayers. Otherwise it's a waste of time. We cannot be certain that we won't war, and thus that we would not have had a need of that city. But, I think that city becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that if we build it, we assume the coming of war and have done something to ensure that it happens by planting "aggressively" on CivPlayers' border. We would not kindly respond to a city planted "in our face" that served no purpose other than blocking our opponent. If diplomatic efforts break down, we can throw a city down there. I'm just in no hurry to do it.

What you're not considering though is the cost of defending with out that city. We won't just have the two cities to worry about with that border, we'll have the cost of a pointless navy, supporting extra defense in a variety of cities that'd be better used elsewhere, the issues of a significant amount of uncertainty about where they'll attack, the fact that it'll be significantly more tempting for them to attack us (particularly since we've been planning for gorging ourselves on two separate civs far away from here). I don't understand either why we think the spot will be open later on either? CivPlayers are playing from behind. They have to push for the advantages they can get.

If we're that worried about the diplomatic consequences then we should make it a part of the border negotiations. We're doing it so we feel safe. About how we're not planning on settleing further, etc.

[NobleHelium]

Again, all of this assumes that CivPlayers will plant a city there if we do not. I strongly believe they won't. Or at least not until all other spots are exhausted.

[Tyrmith]

Again, you're assuming they'll plant the city purely for economic reasons.

[NobleHelium]

Yeah, that's generally how Civ 4 FFAs are played.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I don't understand after all the random freaking out we've done over CFC, that suddenly we care so much about "wasting" a settler on a crappy city. It's not even like we're racing someone for other spots elsewhere. CFC wants to be friends with us for the foreseeable future, and we have a secure border with them. CivPlayer's on the other hand has no reason to be friendly with us (and apparently isn't interested in a long term relationship considering the terms of the NAP), and apparently doesn't trust us either considering the whipping that Kjn is seeing. It's a crappy city. Oh well, can't win em all. But it's far better to be able to know how CivPlayer's will have to invade us and to be prepared for it. If we don't settle the city it's not like we won't have to invest tons of resources anyway on providing extra defense due to being more exposed. I feel like we're saving a $1 now for the cost of $75 later on down the road when we'll wanting to have our army on the other side of the map gobbling up the germans and wpc.

I think I missed the point in this. The difference with CFC is a longstanding diplomatic relationship at risk over a location that could be interpreted by both parties as being within the sphere of influence of either party. That location is of far more economic value than any location available in the southwest. Two food resources and slavery is easily a worthwhile investment. Stone ups the ante for CFC, but we can work out that issue diplomatically.

It isn't just the waste of the settler, either. It is the associate cost of the increased maintenance empire wide, as well as the cost of the city itself, which must then be garrisoned, and infrastructure built. It is a net negative on the rest of our empire. Does it serve a useful purpose? Yes, if it should become necessary to go to war with CivPlayers. Otherwise it's a waste of time. We cannot be certain that we won't war, and thus that we would not have had a need of that city. But, I think that city becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that if we build it, we assume the coming of war and have done something to ensure that it happens by planting "aggressively" on CivPlayers' border. We would not kindly respond to a city planted "in our face" that served no purpose other than blocking our opponent. If diplomatic efforts break down, we can throw a city down there. I'm just in no hurry to do it.

[Sullla]

The flaw in that line of thinking is that we can throw down a city if we get into trouble with CivPlayers later. That's impossible - by the time we need a city there, it will already be too late. If we want a city in that region, we need to plant it immediately and start building up our culture right now. 30 turns from now will be far too late; their city will have popped the 100 culture ring and any city we want to add will be impossible. We should act immediately and found our own city right now.

Are we seriously going to walk away from this region because CivPlayers "probably" won't settle in that region? "Probably" isn't good enough for me. We have a really good economy, enough to absorb one subpar city founded for strategic defensive purposes. If we were limited on settlers/workers or we were in GNP hell, I would totally understand, but neither is the case. We have the workers, we have the settler ready to go, and we have the economy to back it up. I still see this as a question of getting something versus getting nothing. Something > nothing.

Finally, if planting a city one tile outside our current borders is now an "aggressive" settlement, then we deserve to lose for sucking horribly at diplomacy. I urge everyone to remember what kjn posted before:

The natural borders are how far each side can manage to push them. Which is why I think we need to start pushing.