[PB72] Xist10 plays far to home

[Qgqqqqq]

Why not put white 1N? Both of them - the southern one doesn't do much, and the Northern one could pick up a pig.

Thanks for the detailed plans. What timeframe do you think these are on?

[xist10]

I did had a big reply, but RB hasn’t allowed me to post it. Maybe tomorrow.
Short: I can’t move the white cities further north.
And maybe 8 turns for the first ? Most of the rest should be nearly without competition.

[superdeath]

I did had a big reply, but RB hasn’t allowed me to post it. Maybe tomorrow.
Short: I can’t move the white cities further north.
And maybe 8 turns for the first ? Most of the rest should be nearly without competition.

i would move that first White city 1N, and remove the other city. Fish + copper is a great city.

[xist10]

I'm not sure what Mjmd/Aetryn did this turn.
+63 without tech (I see the research) or wonder from the log.

   

This city is a unpleasend surprise, but nothing I could have blocked or something to declare war over.
Even more I should built roads, because Greenline opend his Borders (Bing too).
Greenline changed last turn in HR  und OR. OR was known to me, hed founded Judaism, but HR is a surprise.

And Greenline city makes it impossible to set the white city further north.
I have a unexplored tile 2S of the crabs. I did had a commet at CF, that there could be seafood. SO, Maybe I will place white SW on the plains hill.


To merge White South is a possibility. Maybe If I get yellow.
If not, I have to replan my cities there.

Other point:

I'm nearly broke. I need more workers to built huts and I can't neglec my military, because I fear, Aetryn declares in a few turns again.
And maybe even correct. I'm not sure, but I think, Aetryn could have reached the end of his expansion already.
Mali can't settle further west easy, because the is my City to disrupt his expansion and the mountainrange. He can't move in the valley easy. Ship is a possible, but a expansion via land has my city there.
And I found actual only one pass to expand eastwards. Near Diligence, where I have an axemen.
I don't know his northeast, there could be a pass, but...

And I counted the maptiles. We have a 40x32 map, so an area of 20x16 per player. This mean 320 tiles and maybe 200 tiles which aren't mountain or coast (ocean).
The Valley has ~ 50 tiles.
I put more pressur on Aetryn than I thought or intended.
And If I get my planned area, which should be relativ easys, because I can block access relativ easy, I claim ~ 22x16 and the valley for more area.
I need to found ~4 cities, to claim my area.
White north should dissuade greenline to expand fruther south
Green east should block Bing.
Blue Valley should block the valley from Greenline and Aetryn from expand via land. This city is a maybe, because I will get in conflict with Greenline too and its very far out.
Blue east or Fish east (not shown) should block a flanking movement from Aetryn in my east.
Yellow West has a priority too, because Bing/Greenline could block this city from their side of the coast.

I think about yellow (~ 5 turns) -> white north or red west (~ 5 turns) -> green east -> blue east -> blue valley -> backfill

[xist10]

To list my pressure on Aetryn a bit, I'm thinking about porposing a city exchange.
My last city against Prudence.
This would allow Aetryn to gain easy acces to the valley and with that a semi save, second backline (his he can block Greenline) and me access to the small river valley.
I think, in short term the trade has more benefits for me, but I'm think the valley has a bit of strategic value and the longterm benefits could be better for Aetryn ? I think, that proposal could be accepted.

[Qgqqqqq]

If you hover over your name on the scoreboard, it will tell you how many land tiles are in the game.

Not sure what the rules are but worth checking them before proposing a city trade.

[xist10]

I'm not sure how good this is ? I thought, I need to calculate something from that ?
And a significant part of the map are mountains. But yes, the scorepoint could give me another datapoint.

And I'm not sure about the trade deal - I'm allowed to do that and Do I want to do that, so I write here.
Rules say 1 city per deal, but 1 city per side or 1 city per deal ?
In one case this would be allowed, in another cases not.

[Qgqqqqq]

Sure, that sounds like it would be allowed. Check if it specifies only in war.

[RefSteel]

I checked the voting spreadsheet, and it just says "1 city per deal," but I think this was intended as shorthand for "1 city per peace deal" since that's been the standard lately (to the best of my knowledge). I don't know of any (recent) precedent for permitting 1-for-1 city trades via diplomacy. Note this isn't a ruling though; it's just my attempt to interpret (i.e. guess at) what was intended by everybody.

[scooter]

It seems fine to me in the sense that you wouldn't be offering anything unsporting or exploitative - it's a genuine thing-for-thing offer. But that's just my opinion and does not necessarily mean all would feel that way.